Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[UATrewqaz]

ANYTHING can be won militarily.

(except things like love, etc.)

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
ANYTHING can be won militarily.

(except things like love, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it's always prudent to ask: at what cost?

[Beer and Pizza]

Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

"We are winning, and the democrats know we are winning. (If they thought we were losing, they'd be quiet and let me self-destruct) And how do I know the democrats know we are winning? Two words: wire taps." [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

Excerpts from Senator Biden's commentary on the president's speech show why the democrats are utterly clueless on the whole Iraq situation and only interested in political demagoguery:

"We have six more months to get this right"

and

"If we, in fact, lose in Iraq - that is, if a Shia-style, Iranian-style government is set up - it will be terrible for us for a long time."

So he says the stakes are very high for us to fail in Iraq, butttttttt, we have to succeed in six months more max.

Whereas the president has also correctly recognized what is at stake, but is also willing to see this through to a successful conclusion even if it takes longer than we would like, let alone longer than an artificial time period set up by democrats solely for the purpose of political grandstanding.

Bottom line is the democrats are just fair weather soldiers.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

Whereas the president has also correctly recognized what is at stake, but is also willing to see this through to a successful conclusion even if it takes longer than we would like, let alone longer than an artificial time period set up by democrats solely for the purpose of political grandstanding.


[/ QUOTE ]

If only the administration had shown such patience, restraint and foresight before deciding to invade Iraq, rather than claiming we were in immediate danger and pulling the trigger. And before anyone answers "but everyone believed he had WMD", even if Sadam did have WMD, he was completely contained and little to no threat - certainly less so than a number of other nations.

[InchoateHand]

"Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime."

Really? Thats news.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorists fit into the organized crime category. We can severly reduce or stop it with the right techniques, just as we have with domestic organized crime."

Really? Thats news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please get the attributions right when you quote. I never said that.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If only the administration had shown such patience, restraint and foresight before deciding to invade Iraq, rather than claiming we were in immediate danger and pulling the trigger.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe Bush or senior admin officials claimed we were in "immediate" danger. In fact, I remember hearing Bush say we should invade because if we wait till the danger is immediate, we've waited too long. Care to back up your statement?

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe Bush or senior admin officials claimed we were in "immediate" danger. In fact, I remember hearing Bush say we should invade because if we wait till the danger is immediate, we've waited too long. Care to back up your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that you're correct and that Bush never used that exact phrase. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

So I guess we needed to invade because, while we weren't in immediate danger, we were in immediate danger of being in immediate danger, or perhaps in immediate danger of being in immediate danger of being in immediate danger. How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade? Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that on this occassion and many, many others, Bush certainly implied that Iraq presented an immediate and present danger. The specific quote to which you refer is:

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opinion and his quote don't match. How can he be implying an imminent danger while OTOH saying we shouldn't wait till the danger is imminent?

[ QUOTE ]
How close do you need to get to "immediate danger" to invade?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the containment and weapon inspections at the time, I don't think we were remotely close enough to justify the cost that has been, and will be, paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's your opinion.