Bush

[ 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.

[ 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.

[cardcounter0]

{insert question about any problem here}

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

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

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.