President gives speech Dems spaz....

[trippin bily]

President Bush gave a great speech on Iraq and the war on terror.
The response from the Dems was typical and repeated over and over.
In a nut shell, according to Dems , Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.
According to The Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed forces against Iraq October 2002.The one the Dems love to point to to show the support forthe war on terror but not Iraq.
" Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for ...including attacks that occured on September 11th, 2001 are known to be in Iraq. "
This is just one the resolution that point out that iraq was involved with terrorist.
Heres another " Where as Iraq continues to aid and harbor other International terrorist organizations including organizations that threaten the lives and saftey of American citizens"
Clearly Bush has included Iraq in the war on terror from the beginning. Most Dems voted for the resolution as the loonies will tell you.Including those who squirm every time Bush puts the war on terror and Iraq together.
Isn't it time the Dems stop the charade and admit they knew Iraq was part of the war on terror from the very begiining and stop spazzing evertime Bush mentions 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence ?

[shots]

What I liked most about the speech was how he clearly laid out a plan for Iraq without doing something really stupid like setting a day when the troops would leave. It was the perfect approach to the situation.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it time the Dems stop the charade and admit they knew Iraq was part of the war on terror from the very begiining and stop spazzing evertime Bush mentions 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer, of course, is 'yes'.

Thanks for the post. (Ex the ad hominems and grammatical errors [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img])

[bholdr]

From today's NY times op-ed page:

[ QUOTE ]
We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

[trippin bily]

He did say when the troops will leave He has said it numerous times.
When the Iraqis can stand on their own.
Granted there was not much new in his speech.
There was not much new in the Dems response either.
Any points for staying the course ?

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal

[/ QUOTE ]

He laid out very specific things along within a solid timetable which explained very clearly what he intends to do to achieve victory. Defining victory in some kind of simplistic way as the NY times seems to want is impossible. It's a complicated situation and the point were we can pull out will be decided through the consideration of many factors.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's rich. Anyone with a semi-functional brain knows the Dems have been demanding a timetable (Kennedy et al), and Bush succinctly (imo) answered why such a demand is unreasonable, let alone dangerous.

It's interesting that the NYT op-ed is in lockstep with other prominent dems/libs in balking over the 9-11 references. I think the reason Dems don't want Bush to ever mention 9-11 is because they know people are reminded of how they felt that awful day and how much support Bush received afterwards. Oh well, I didn't really expect better of the NYT.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
That's rich. Anyone with a semi-functional brain knows the Dems have been demanding a timetable (Kennedy et al), and Bush succinctly (imo) answered why such a demand is unreasonable, let alone dangerous.

It's interesting that the NYT op-ed is in lockstep with other prominent dems/libs in balking over the 9-11 references. I think the reason Dems don't want Bush to ever mention 9-11 is because they know people are reminded of how they felt that awful day and how much support Bush received afterwards. Oh well, I didn't really expect better of the NYT.


[/ QUOTE ]

A: The dems are not the only ones calling for a timetable.

B: he said absolutely nothing that hasn't been said before

C: he continues to assure the public, promise them, in effect, an eventual "victory", without giving even ONE specific policy change that would make such a promise even remotely credible. No one doubts that the US is TRYing to win the war, defeat the insurgency, whatever, but they are beginning to suspect that we may not be ABLE to win the war. Bush did absolutely NOTHING to address these concerns, obstinatly continuing to repeat the same bits of propaganda that he's been spewing ever since "mission accomplished"- 1500 americamn lives ago.

D: Again, it's not just the democrats that are beginning to question Bush's constant refrences to 9-11- it's become a kind of catch-all for the administration, whenever dissent comes up, it's "9-11, 9-11" because, c'mon, who can forget how we felt that day? Bottom line? Bush has gone well beyond refrencing 9-11 to provide context to his speeches, etc, he is quite clearly cynicly abusing a national tragedy to further his own political purposes. oh well, i REALLY didn't expect any better of Bush.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Defining victory in some kind of simplistic way as the NY times seems to want is impossible. It's a complicated situation and the point were we can pull out will be decided through the consideration of many factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

wait aminute... a bush supporter is accusing the opposition of oversimplyfing? that's a riot! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
President Bush gave a great speech on Iraq and the war on terror.
The response from the Dems was typical and repeated over and over.
In a nut shell, according to Dems , Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.
According to The Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed forces against Iraq October 2002.The one the Dems love to point to to show the support forthe war on terror but not Iraq.
" Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for ...including attacks that occured on September 11th, 2001 are known to be in Iraq. "
This is just one the resolution that point out that iraq was involved with terrorist.
Heres another " Where as Iraq continues to aid and harbor other International terrorist organizations including organizations that threaten the lives and saftey of American citizens"
Clearly Bush has included Iraq in the war on terror from the beginning. Most Dems voted for the resolution as the loonies will tell you.Including those who squirm every time Bush puts the war on terror and Iraq together.
Isn't it time the Dems stop the charade and admit they knew Iraq was part of the war on terror from the very begiining and stop spazzing evertime Bush mentions 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen the latest polls, but as of a year ago, an astounding 57% of Americans still believed that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks. The most influential people that were suggesting that connection were those at the top of the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney (in many Sunday interviews).

Bush has been making that connection in many speeches, including several State of the Union speeches, for years now. Many people listen to our president and make that connection. With that false logic in their minds, they then often rally behind the war effort.

I think what has many Democrats angry about Bush's speech is exactly what you said: he is still saying Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence.

-ptmusic