Disgusting Comment by President Bush

[andyfox]

"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high and the national interest is too important for the politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

But not too important for Secretary of State Powell to give misleading information to the U.N. Not too important to claim that if we didn't act we'd see a mushroom cloud over America. Not too important to refuse to plan for post-war Iraq.

Apparently the president doesn't consider himself one of "the politicians." It's only those who disagree with him. Their "false charges" are sending the wrong signals to our enemy and our troops.

But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him.

[Beer and Pizza]

Shame on you for distorting and rewriting history. But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points.

[andyfox]

"But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points."

Yup, I'm constantly defending CBS, the NYT, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid on this forum.

Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?

[CORed]

I always find it amusing when a politician, of whatever party or ideology, talks disparagingly aboutg "the politicians".

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" is an enemy of the state. Fortunately, I think more people, even some of the more sane Republicans, are starting to see through it. I think we will likely have a Democrat cotroolled congress after the 2006 elections. I'm not totally happy about that, but I think one or two sound electoral defeats is the only way that the Republican party can be purged of the neo-con and religious right nutcases, and become, once again, the party of limited government, free-market economics, and fiscal responsibility.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Shame on you for distorting and rewriting history. But then, I realize you are just following the lead of the media and the Democrat talking points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. Gorgeous.

[sam h]

Another depressing thing about this speech is the pattern of routinely making these historical comparisons that are just patently false. This is nothing new for him of course.

[ QUOTE ]
"the terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced"

[/ QUOTE ]

What? We fought the goddamn Nazis, and faced off agains the Soviets in the Cold War. How is this rag-tag bunch of terrorists as brutal as them?

[ QUOTE ]
"By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress - from tyranny to liberation to national elections to the ratification of a constitution in the space of two and a half years,"

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this progress "incredible?" The pace of democratization in Iraq is considerably slower than most comparable historical examples, where electoral regimes were much more quickly implemented after the fall of authoritarianism, and also considerably less extensive. Iraq may be marked by extenuating circumstances. But it is ridiculous to claim that the progress there, in comparative perspective with other cases of countries attempting to transition to democracy, has been substantial at all.

There is the irony. In a speech about defending himself from the charge of lying in the lead up to the war, he gets up and blows smoke about the aftermath of the war.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Where have I distorted and/or rewritten history?
************************************************** ********
Where? By this quote:
"But it was his own false charges that are responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans. Shame on him."

Here are the facts:
1. Both the US Senate and US Congress have intelligence committees.
2. The members of these intelligence committees are given access to SAME intelligence that the PRESIDENT OF THE USA HAS.
3. The when the polls showed public support for the war in Iraq was high, Kerry, Kennedy, and other prominent Democrats stated Iraq had WMD and must be stopped. They voted to give the president authorization to invade Iraq.
4. NOW....that the polls show flagging support for the war in Iraq these same democrats who previously claimed Iraq had WMD are claiming Bush tricked them.
5. Inquiries into the pre-war intelligence show that there was no political pressure to alter intelligence.
6. Bill Clinton is on record stating SEVERAL times Iraq had WMD.

QUESTIONS:
1. How can the Dems claim that Bush lied when the Democrats had the ***SAME*** intelligence that Bush43 had to make the assertion that Iraq still had WMD? Were the Dems also lying about the intelligence?
2. Was Clinton lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
3. Was Kerry lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
4. Were other Democrats lying when he said Iraq had WMD?
5. Why do you assert Bush43 is a liar while failing to call Kerry, Clinton, and other Democrats liars?

I would love to see you answer these questions. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will answer these questions.

[bobman0330]

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation here Andy. I'm not going to defend any failures of intelligence or planning that Bush may or may not have committed. Go ahead and damn him for those. Go ahead and blast him for any shortcomings you see in his current policy. Nothing like some insightful and incisive Andyfox commentary to help revitalize political discourse.

That being said, there's a great deal of anti-war sentiment that is indeed baseless. Part of the problem is a structural bias in the media towards car bombings over reconstruction efforts. Part of it, arguably, is a political bias on the editorial boards of a lot of major newspapers. Part of it is people's visceral animosity towards Bush and the right that makes them reflexively opposed to anything he says.

Normally, that wouldn't be a big deal. But in a situation like this, all the insipid Vietnam comparisons and the pessimistic view of the situation on the ground presented in the media can have serious consequences. Especially if they convince the terrorists that they're only a few suicide bombings away from getting the coalition out of the way so they can topple Iraq's democratic government. Or if Iraqis decide that the US isn't going to be in Iraq for the long haul, and they'd better start hedging their bets.

I'm sure there's a base political attempt to immunize himself from criticism here too. But the fundamental point remains that some responsibility is needed before speaking out.

[MaxPower]

Let's not forget when Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice said that Iraq did not have WMD programs. Were they lying?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Let's not forget when Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice said that Iraq did not have WMD programs. Were they lying?
************************************************** *********
I think you are mistaken. I don't think they ever said this. Every major intelligence agency concluded Iraq STILL had stockpiles of WMD. Including the USA, France, Britain, etc...
+++FEEL FREE TO POST A LINK+++ I don't think you can back this up. Did you mistakenly type "not" when you did not mean to?

I would love for any Bush43 hater to answer my questions. And please don't duck these questions by asking a counter question. It is a transparent tactic and shows me you are afraid to answer the questions that I asked.