Disgusting Comment by President Bush

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
The real question all of these democrat hypocrites should be answering is

[/ QUOTE ]
If you suspected that the intelligence was incorrect / the President was lying / the intelligence was faulty / then why did you vote to go to war ?

FYP

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing what you know now would you have voted for a war in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is irrelevant – It’s just like asking “Knowing what you know now would you have let your great aunt get on the Titanic?

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Hussein was a major sponsor of terror was icing on the cake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[theBruiser500]

this thread is a joke, bush is a moron and you guys are retards for defending him

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If you suspected that the intelligence was incorrect / the President was lying / the intelligence was faulty / then why did you vote to go to war ?



[/ QUOTE ]

A very plausible answer to those questions is: I believed the President then. A lot has happened since then that makes me question both the intelligence and the presentation of the evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing what you know now would you have voted for a war in Iraq?



[ QUOTE ]
This is irrelevant – It’s just like asking “Knowing what you know now would you have let your great aunt get on the Titanic?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an irrelevant question if the answer you want is directed at the question of whether this war is being implemented in a terrible way.

[andyfox]

"You can not be intellectual honest and accuse Bush43 of lying about Iraq without calling Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Pelosi, and other democrats liars as well."

Wrong.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards and Pelosi did not say if we did not act on Iraq we'd see a mushroom cloud over the U.S.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not send Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of BS.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op in front of a sign saying "Mission Accomplished," knowing full well that they had not prepared for the postwar occupation.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not pressure people to find a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not say we found the WMDs (by which, BTW, the president was referring to truck that were not mobile weapons labs, but rather hydrogen production facilities for weather balloons).

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not assert many months ago that the insurgency was in its last throes.

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not have a Secretary of Defense A) who refused to prepare for the occupation and, pretending he didn't know there might be looting, say oh well, "stuff happens"; and B) who, when told we needed to bomb Afghanistan because the Taliban was giving succor to Al-Qaeda, insisted on bombing Iraq instead because, "there are not good targets in Afghanistan."

I am not a defender of Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards or Pelosi. Their criticism of the administration certainly smacks of politics and finger-in-the-windism. But the administration has been duplicitous from its very first week in office, when there were meetings about overthrowing Hussein long before either 9/11 or the administration worrying about terrorism.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
A very plausible answer to those questions is: I believed the President then.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more honest answer would be “It was an election year and we needed to appear strong on defense: now we just want our power back and we’ll say anything to get it”

[Felix_Nietsche]

Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards and Pelosi did not say if we did not act on Iraq we'd see a mushroom cloud over the U.S.
************************************************** ********
They may have become true or it may not have. We will never know now. This is an OPINION not a falsehood. Anyway I don't think you are quoting Bush accurately.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not send Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of BS.
************************************************** ***
The "BS" was base on CIA intelligence. The same intelligence that the Democrats saw. If there were mistakes the fault lies with the CIA and Hussein who violated the terms of the armistice by kicking out the inspectors for several years and not honoring the other terms of the armistice. Also Clinton cut the budget of the CIA and changed their reliance on field agents to high-tech information gathering. This was a huge mistake and Clinton deserves blame as well.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op in front of a sign saying "Mission Accomplished," knowing full well that they had not prepared for the postwar occupation.
************************************************** ******
The US aircraft carrier was given several missions in the war against Iraq. They accomplished their missions and were on their way home to reunite with their families. So what if they wanted to celebrate their success with a sign. I think you are getting desperate to even mention something so petty. The Marines and US Army did NOT have such signs because they still had a long way to go before they complete their post-war missions and get to go home.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not pressure people to find a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
************************************************** *****
According to the bi-partisan investigations there was no pressure to change/alter intelligence. Feel free to back up your assertions.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not say we found the WMDs (by which, BTW, the president was referring to truck that were not mobile weapons labs, but rather hydrogen production facilities for weather balloons).
***********************************************
I would like to see the exact Bush quote you are referring to before commenting. Again, I suspect you are being blinded by your dislike of Bush.


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not assert many months ago that the insurgency was in its last throes.
************************************************** *****
No, they keep saying the insurgency is winning. Every time they open their mouths they make all the anti-US papers in the middle-east. They are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Consider this, if al-qaeda was to succesfully get an agent elected to the US Senate with the mission of undermining the war effort...then how would the agents actions differ from what Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, etc... are doing?


Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and Pelosi did not have a Secretary of Defense A) who refused to prepare for the occupation and, pretending he didn't know there might be looting, say oh well, "stuff happens"; and B) who, when told we needed to bomb Afghanistan because the Taliban was giving succor to Al-Qaeda, insisted on bombing Iraq instead because, "there are not good targets in Afghanistan."
************************************************** **
The failure to enact marshal law was a HUGE mistake. As for the shortage of armored trucks and armored jeeps this is no ones fault. The US military was designed to counter an invasion by the Warsaw Pact countries. In such a conflict it did not make sense to have armored fuel trucks and armored jeeps. You can not add 600lbs of armor on a truck door because the door will fall off. It takes a lot of engineering and redesign. The pentagon moved quickly but the manufacturers could not produce the armored Humvees and trucks fast enough. Rumsfeld was 100% correct in saying you go to war with the military you have...not what you wish it to be. As for the lack of upgraded flak jackets (body armor) it was Clinton who cut the military's budget to the bone. Bush43 increased the budget and now Iraq is swimming in the upgraded flak jackets.

As for bombing Afganistan, it not economical to fire a million dollar cruise missle at half a squad of insurgents. Firing a million dollar cruise missle at a million dollar tank in NOT economical either. Even in war, generals have budgets. Afghanistan is VERY poor and it was NOT a rich target environment. The Afghan air force was practically non-existent. Also keep in mind the US military's stockpile of bombs/cruise missles was CRITICAL low after Clinton left office. On other words they were correct in saying there were not many good targets in Afghanistan and the low stockpiles meant the USA had to be extra-prudent in how ammunition was expended. Clinton deserves fault as well because in his efforts to artificially inflate the budget surpluses, he purposely prevented the military from restocking their arsenal. When Bush took over he had to play catch up and when we first went to war the USA did not have enough bombs and missles.


I am not a defender of Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards or Pelosi. Their criticism of the administration certainly smacks of politics and finger-in-the-windism.
***********************************************
Then we agree on this.


But the administration has been duplicitous from its very first week in office, when there were meetings about overthrowing Hussein long before either 9/11 or the administration worrying about terrorism.
************************************************** *****
Good. There should have been. Iraq violated the armistice, the embargos, and tried to assassinate Bush41. We needed to invade Iraq for these reasons alone. Hell, if they tried to assassinate Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi.....then I STILL say we should have gone to war. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]

Bush is still trying to push the idea that anybody who opposes is ill-conceived occupation of Iraq, or any other aspect of his "war on terror" .

[/ QUOTE ]

it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Huh?
************************************************
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/part1.html

10 WAYS THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ SUPPORTS THE WAR ON TERROR

1. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror. According to (US) State Department reports on terrorism, before the removal of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of seven state sponsors of terror.
4. A senior al Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al Qaida was intent on obtaining WMD assistance from Iraq. According to a credible, high-level al Qaida source, Usama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif did not believe that al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons, so they turned to Iraq for assistance. Iraq agreed to provide chemical and biological weapons training for two al Qaida associates starting in December 2000.
5. Senior al Qaida associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi came to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment along with approximately two dozen al Qaida terrorist associates. This group stayed in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq and plotted terrorist attacks around the world.
6. A safe haven in Iraq belonging to Ansar al-Islam -- a terrorist group closely associated with Zarqawi and al Qaida -- was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In March 2003, during a raid on the compound controlled by the terrorists in northeastern Iraq, a cache of documents was discovered, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to fighters from various Middle East nationalities.
7. The al Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Islam is known to still be present in Iraq. Such terrorist groups are now plotting against U.S. forces in Iraq.
8. Law enforcement and intelligence operations have disrupted al Qaida associate Abu Musab Zarqawi's poison plotting in France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Russia. The facilities in Northern Iraq, set up by Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam were, before the war, an al Qaida's poisons/toxins laboratory.
9. Abu Musa Zarqawi, the al Qaida associate with direct links to Iraq, oversaw those responsible for the assassination of USAID officer Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October.
10. Saddam Hussein's Iraq provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, according to a State Department report. This included paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, according to testimonials from Palestinians and cancelled checks. Also, according to State Department reports, terrorist groups the Iranian Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Abu Nidal organization were protected by the Iraqi regime protected by the Iraqi regime.

This list did not mention the $25,000 that Hussein paid to the surving Palestinian families after a successful suicide bombing against Israeli citizens. But being from the UK you are being brainwashed with the partisan trash on BBC so I can understand why the BBC editors never aired this information to the general British public.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
But the administration has been duplicitous from its very first week in office, when there were meetings about overthrowing Hussein long before either 9/11 or the administration worrying about terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that overthrowing Hussein was discussed during meetings in previous administrations? Also do you believe that Bush only started being concerned about terrorism as of 9/11? Was the Clinton administration ever duplicitous? This isn't a cross examination as I'm pointing out that in and of itself the things you mention in this particular statement don't necessarily represent some sort of conspiracy and/or disinformation effort IMO. The reality IMO is that support for U.N. sanctions was waning and in light of this the administration was confronted with letting Hussein operate much more freely without the imposition of U.N. sanctions where he had a history of committing genocide (ask the Kurds) and developing WMDs (ask the Iranians). I think U.N. sanctions were a failure, ill conceived, and cruel to many innocent Iraqis but I digress. Did the U.S. screw up in yesteryear in dealing with Hussein? Yes I think so and that includes Bush41.