Bush

If I was guilty of whining about WJC, or his wife, you'd have a reason to make your pissy post. I'm not.

[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.

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.

[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.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you can continue whining.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or maybe you could continue having a reasonable debate about the issue on a politics forum.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The evidence is crystal clear that the administration saw 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, not as a reason.

Pure semantics.

What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?

because it plants the seed of doubt that, when the time comes to fund the war, that Congress may not take the appropriate steps to provide the means for victory.

The Democrats who voted to use force against Hussein did not vote for an occupation of Iraq.

Talk about nit-picking. Vote for force but then reserve the right to cop out when you don't agree with the tactics? Makes zero sense.


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.


And that is precisely what we are doing over there. Though I'd say the threat to the US is not just Iraq, but Iran as well. We need a base of operations against Iran.

This war has been brewing for most of our lifetime, Andy. We've ignored it, sticking our heads in the sand like the US did in the 30's with Germany, preferring to live in a dream world where a safe, peaceful world comes about because we wish it to be that way.

You're right. It's not Iraq that was the real threat to the US, but Iraq has always been a piece of the problem. Liberating Iraq from Saddam is not the end of the problem. It's just the first step.

I applaud Bush for taking a the first decisive step in making the world a better place for my grandson.

[ 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.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence is crystal clear that the administration saw 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, not as a reason.

Pure semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so. What evidence is their that Iraq or any of it's agencies have any links to 9/11. Or failing that show me how 'excuse' and 'reason' mean essentially the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence is there for that criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq harms the morale of the troops?

because it plants the seed of doubt that, when the time comes to fund the war, that Congress may not take the appropriate steps to provide the means for victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like not supplying the numbers and equipment they need for the job. FYI, they already know.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not Iraq that was the real threat to the US, but Iraq has always been a piece of the problem. Liberating Iraq from Saddam is not the end of the problem. It's just the first step.

I applaud Bush for taking a the first decisive step in making the world a better place for my grandson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs but if the cook sucks your grandson won't thank you for it.

[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?