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

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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[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.