President Bush Tuesday night gave some compelling reasons why the United States can’t afford to lose Iraq, including the danger of that country becoming a staging area for lethal terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
He indicated some progress, although vaguely, in the two approaches that offer the most hope for U.S. troops leaving Iraq: political settlement talks with Sunni leaders and military training of Iraqi troops.
Beyond that, the speech fell far short of the blunt talk I had hoped for: He gave no indication of what specific new strategies he would employ to make our military more effective against the daily bombings and ambushes Americans are seeing on their TV screens.
No additional troops. Nothing new with training or fielding Iraqi troops. No indication even in the most general terms of an exit strategy.
I doubt the speech will give much of a bump to Bush’s sliding poll numbers on Iraq. On the eve of his speech, a Gallup/CNN poll showed that 61 percent of Americans didn’t think the president had a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq.
Bush offered nothing reassuring on that front. Americans are pragmatists who realize that you can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
The speech prepared them for more of the same.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
42 Comments
Randy Scholfield: “Americans are pragmatists who realize that you can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results.”
Steven E.: “Oh yeah? We re-elected G.W. Bush, didn’t we?”
You really can’t be saying that somebody expected different results from this re-election, can you? What, in all that’s been chronicled pertaining to GW, would make anyone think that? I’m still trying to figure out where in Christianity the 10 Commandments flew out the window. It appears that they, along with the Geneva Convention, apply to everyone else. I remain, Holier than thou….
Randy, You insights about Bush’s speech are, in my opinion, correct. However, In the assessment, I still see no answer, while men and women are still dying, both Americans and Iraqis. Leaving Iraq now may be the hardest choice, but as with Vietnam, it seems best. Better now than later.
Details are good for poll numbers, such as enemy body count, where/how we plan to improve it or when we will leave. The Clinton/Bosnia timetable helped his polls at the time, too. But War is not predictable.
In reply to Nola:
I don’t think the electorate wanted what we’re getting from G.W.’s foreign policy. During the election, I recall Bush supporters talking about who could best protect us from terrorists. So, extrapolating from that, I think Republican voters wanted something different from Bush than what we’re getting in Iraq. Bush can say “at least we’re fighting them in Baghdad instead of Brooklyn.” However, it has been the assessment of some generals on the ground that our presence is creating jihadists instead of defeating them. I don’t think even Rush Limbaugh would have asked for something like that.
I love the vicious circle the media puts itself in!
reporters like Randy sit here and talk about how bad the war is going over and over again and make demands and expectations that are not met over and over again and then cite public opinion in which you have shaped as your backing!
Give me a break…
The exit strategy is called “Victory”
We didn’t have one in WWII, Vietnam, or any other war. All wars are unpredictable. There is no such thing as an exit strategy in war. That is a politican talking point.
We go to win. We are never going to leave Iraq, so liberals better get used to it. As of today, we still have not left Japan, Germany, and South Korea. There will be a permanent base and military presence in Iraq for many, many years.
I know it is politically popular to be against Operation Iraqi Freedom now, two years ago, it was politically popular to support the War on Terrorism. People sway, not because they care about military men and women dieing, because they don’t care, they sway on what is politically popular amoung their peers.
If the Liberals in Congress want to end the war, then stand up on the floor of Congress and persaude to take away every dollar from the war effort. They hold the purse stings, not President Bush.
I bet they will not do it, because they are political wussies! ;)
Geez, Randy didn’t like the speech….shocker.
Joe, Vietnam was not a war. Unwinnable. And look how long we were involved in it. Look how many Americans lost their lives it. How many lives were changed because of it. We should be trying to avoid the same thing in Iraq that happened in Vietnam. So the reason (what is this, the 42nd different one Bush has used?) for both may have been honorable (or so we’re told), but we couldn’t have won Vietnam, and we can’t win Iraq. Until the administration in this country pays attention to what history has taught us, or should’ve taught us, we’ll be sinking slowly in the quagmire of another “conflict”, only this time it’s more of an occupation.
I can’t believe that you truly think that withholding funding will bring our troops home. Only a fool would leave our troops high and dry. There’ll be no victory or peace in Iraq. Yes, we’ll be there forevermore. Isn’t that what this whole thing was about? 14 bases and a how-many-billion-dollar embassy are being built, all for the U.S. of A. Oh, yes, the plan always was to get in and stay. Daddy Bush didn’t do it, but Junior isn’t smart enough to think for himself.
How half of a country could vote for a man who couldn’t even make a success of three oil companies in Texas, with funding from the Saudis, is beyond me. Once a loser, always a loser, and he’s taking the country down with him, this time.
RD, you make some good points, especially about bases in the middle east. The prez and vice-prez are oilmen, the oil is in the mid-east, they’re prepositioned to go for the oil when things get rough. And as someone said earlier, Iraq had the only standing army in the region.
How could half the country vote Bush in? Considering how many people don’t vote, it was way less than half the people. Just a very noisy minority that think they’re in charge. People do some strange things when they’re scared, and the Bush Junta did a great job of scaring the Hell out of a lot of people. Note that the domestic terror threat seems to have gone away since the last election. Be interesting to see how many Orange alerts we get coming into the ‘06 elections.
Vietnam wasn’t a war? :WTF:
I guess under the Democrats, conflicts are not considered war, as to not tie a stigma of it to their administration. How many mistakes did Kennedy and Johnson did on that war. They killed 58,000 men, because the Viet Cong Communist were athiest. It was a religous war, and the was wrong to go in there. Yes! It is a war!
I here that tired aurgument, because liberals say that Congress didn’t declare it a war, they didn’t declare the conflict in Iraq a war either.
Saying this is a war on oil is ridiculous. Its not even worth debating about it, because I can see through your hatred of Bush. Go on ahead and worry about that and keep hating. Just makes you miserable doesn’t it?
I just hope we can all get along and be united as Americans.
I see the same old comments about this being a war for oil…
What I dont see is any rationale or evidence to back up that assertion.
The Iraq war was about sand. Iraq has 9% of the world’s sand. Bush and his neocon buddies are sandmen. You can tell by the way they put democrats to sleep. Iraq had the only standing army in the region, so they’re prepositioned to go for the sand when things get rough.
Ironclad logic. Read it and weep.
Thank you, Tricia. At least we have actually “found” sand there. On another note, until people can put aside the Democrat and Republican bias and look at elected officials singly as the supposed representatives of “we the people”, logic cannot be applied rationally to those official’s actions. Party affiliation should have nothing to do with whether a person is critical of, or positive about our leaders actions. To continue to react in that manner is to be no more intelligent than sheep. Baaaaahhh.
On Bush’s re-election.
Most people I asked really believed that Bush made the mess we were in. Believing that, their logic was he was the one who needed to clean it up.
Don’t forget that there was one electronic voting machine that registered more votes for Bush than people voted. I will never believe that is the only E-voting machine that had that glitch.
The speech to me, only said the same things again and again. We have no plan, never had one for winning the war. If Rumsfield is correct and it can be another 12 years of war in Iraq, then our only choice is to bring our troops home.
The war has already become a training ground for terrorists. WE created the logistics for it. If there were no Americans in Iraq, who would be the enemy to attack?
The Administration ties to Haliburton/Carlyle is what gets me.
Its right in front of our face, and most GOP/Bush supporters just ignore the Good OL boy scheme.
Are we even re-building anything over there?
I keep hearing about electricity , sewer, water still being out.
I’ve been hearing some really great news coming from Iraq. They don’t report good news in the Entertainment Press.
How many of you who support the “war” in Iraq ever served in the military? Joe? Nathan? What you people don’t seem to realize is that this country has never won a “war” where public support was not behind our government. That’s why we came in 2nd place in Vietnam and we will come in 2nd place in the Middle East. Free Saddam – them people need a dictator !
dan newland,
I served a couple of tours in country 30-odd years ago. Having seen combat first-hand has a lot to do with my own opposition to the current fiasco. You make an excellent point. Yes, the support was there for the invasion of Iraq in the beginning, but that’s changed now that people are starting to realize that we were lied to and stampeded into an illegal war. The Bushivics scared everybody to death with talk of mushroom clouds and WMD, and then couldn’t back it up.
Considering what’s happening in Iraq now, you may be right about them needing a dictator.
I have served in the Marines for almost 8 years now.
I fail to see how this pertains to the discussion at hand.
The problem in Iraq is that the Bush advisors were so sure of their so-called strategy that they thought we’d be in and done with it before our reasons for being there were questioned. Yes, we freed the people from Saddam. Now they want to know who will free them from us?
Under those conditions, there is no way we can win, and no way we can leave without creating a government that is worse for our interests (oil and Middle-East stability) than Saddam! The reason we can’t win is not military; it’s the last 60 years of forcing a policy that favored our financial and political interests at the expense of the people. That short-sighted policy has now returned to bite us in the ass! Sure- Saddam needed to go, but remember, he came to power with our blessing, and stayed there because we supported his war with Iran! As a result, any government we support now won’t trust us, and won’t be trusted by it’s people; in other words, it will be unstable.
The greed and ignorance of our current administration got us into that war (not 9-11). The only alternative we have to a permanent war is to cut our losses, pull out and take our lumps. The sooner, the better! Unfortunately, everybody loses!
On Sept. 10 2001, G bush’s approval rating was about 51%. This was due in some part to the fact that he was not legitimately elected. It was also due to the fact that in the first 8 months of his residency (and I do mean residency) he had spent about half of his time in Texas. And in the time he did choose to actually devote to the job he was selected for, his only major policy move was on restricting stem cell research; a clear play to his base.
Sept 11 united America, as of course it should. By Sept. 14 bush had risen to 67% approval. Too, the nations of the world at large stood with us in our difficult time.
But bush squandered this unity both at home and in the world. I need not go into the issues and reasons. Everyone informed enough to be posting here is aware of them. The nation was united in destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan. The world also stood with us in the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden.
But bush continued to thumb his nose at the world, and at home, he continued to pander to his base. Worker rights were repealed, tax policies favored the haves ( his admitted base) So his support slipped.
But then there was Iraq; Iraq which had been a thorn in our side since “Poppy” Bush failed to finish the job a decade earlier. Iraq was also alledged to have plotted “Poppy’s assassination. And it is now known that key members of the bush 2 administration had been looking for and excuse to invade Iraq since day 1 of bush 2.
Well nothing unifies like war now does it. Give the people a big scary enemy. Play on the desire for revenge for 911 (easier than explaining why Osama had not been caught). So create a war. Make up the reasons for it and keep changing them. We went because Saddam was an imminent threat. Only he wasn’t. A bad man yes. A threat to the U.S. justifying war? No.
So……..we…. we FREED PEOPLE! Yeah that sells! Unless of course you stop to wonder how many other people in the world could use such help. Of course they might not be oil rich or strategically located.
It’s better to fight them in Baghdad than Boston, or Belle Plaine or Beloit! Hmmm…….. Well there certainly is no shortage of people that hate the United States. How many more so since bush took over? But do we really need to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives to keep the enemy “over there”? With the investment of a few million, couldn’t we create security that would keep the enemy over there….. over there? Oh but then we would have to close the Southern border too; and that would make the bush base that loves cheap labor unhappy.
So where are we headed? Well it’s the perfect war folks. We kill an enemy and 3 more pop up. Halliburton repairs a pipeline and the insurgents blow it up. Halliburton fixes it again and you and I pay the bill! Hell, why should the terrorists come here? If you are a frustrated angry person driven to kill Americans, how much easier it is to kill them in your own land? You don’t have to worry about security or travel. Why cross an ocean when you can cross a border? They will keep coming and dying….to kill Americans…….who keep coming and dying
Long story short, it will never be over. That is what makes the perfect war. The enemy can never hurt us in any serious way. Our very actions replentish the enemy. The “threat” can be held in perpetuity! Those who profit from war get a steady cash flow. And if you are not for us you are against us! So dissent on any level is sedition!
That folks is the recipe for facism.
An aside here; my posts tend to repeat. I do not know why. I am on webtv (though I have been accused of using an etch-a-sketch) The repeats are not intentional and if they are annoying I will stop posting. If anyone knows how I can address this please sing out. For now, only a few right wingers have complained. And I live to annoy right wingers!
Jay, your summation is very thought out and articulate. I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Rimel,
You say “The nation was united in destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Such a covenient memory you have. Actually, all the usual Bush haters whined about how we’d be driven off like the Russians were, we’d be slaughtered in the caves and buried in the mountains by the terrible winters. Yada, yada, yada. There was never a moment when leftists, America haters, Bush haters, elitiists, limousine liberals, intellectuals, left wing loonies, or the media with their Vietnam era blinders were united with the USA.
If Iraq’s secret police/intelligence bureau didn’t try to kill Bush #1, why did Clinton retaliate by sending a cruise missile to destroy Iraq’s intelligence building? Why are Clinton and Bush #1 so tight now?
How easily you ignore what Chris Matthews pointed out when he bored into Howard Dean last night on “Hardball.” Matthews asks:
“If the war in Iraq was a blunder, why don’t the top democrats join you in saying so?….Bill Clinton still stands with the president. Hillary Clinton stands with the president. Joe Lieberman stands with the president. They all do. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat, stands with the president. You’re out there alone still saying it’s a blunder.”
Matthews acknowledged that these people differ with Bush on the details, but not on the need to remove Saddam, but continued to press Dean on why they still stand with the President.
Dean’s answer: Sputter, mumble, dissemble, …”Well, I don’t know…”
The Congress overwhelmingly approved the resolution to authorize force against Iraq. Even most of the democrat senators voted for it. In supporting it, Hillary said:
“…I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people….”
“In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge….” (just like we did to the South Vietnamese when leftists forced our pullout and the democrat congress refused to give further funding or equipment to help them defend themselves. No wonder the world mistrusts us.)”
Hillary continues: “As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.”
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.”
Now here’s the most important thing she said:
“In 1998, (WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT!)the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change…”
She goes on to say that we should give the UN one more chance to vote before acting on the war authorization, which Bush did. And then she waffles at some length for political cover, as might be expected of a good politician.
Nevertheless, she ends with the statement that her vote “is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.”
So much for the loony left notion that the Iraq war was all about oil, for Bush lies, or for a vendetta.
E. Ireland,
I’d like to point out that if BushI had finished what he started, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Ire,
So, was Hillary Clinton operating under the assumption that Bush was telling the truth about the presence of WMD? Yes.
Was this her reason for supporting the authorization for the President to use force? Yes.
Do the Downing Street Memos reveal that our closest ally in the war thought we had already decided to go to war and that ‘the facts were being fixed to support the policy?’ Yes.
Does this discrediting of the WMD perogative lead us to ask the question of why Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq? Yes.
The answer, obvious to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Wingnut-flavored Kool Aid: oil.
Let’s hear it for American energy independence!
Though, really, I think the Iraq war has as much to do with the Necons’ delusional attempt to use military force to make the Mideast safe for free markets, as it does with oil. Idealism and cynicism in equal measure.
I think CF mentions a point we need to examine a little closer. When Congress agreed to Bush’s war, we had been lied to about “mushroom clouds” and toy airplanes poised to spray us with poisons and disease. I wonder if, knowing what we know now, congress would go along with an illegal war. It’s hard to argue the issues when the reasons keep changing. We’ve gone from WMD to Bio Weapons to “Saddam didn’t obey the UN” (We’re probably out of compliance with some UN resolution or other). Now, we’re “Humanitarians”. News flash! Conservatives don’t do anything for humanitarian reasons.
Locke,
You are right. Bush 1 should have been allowed to finish the job. UN resolution 660 and the Iraqi withdawal ended it too early. That’s what happens when we let the UN dictate policy to us.
Key congressmen and senators, including Hillary, had open access to information about Saddam’s weapons. Certainly Hillary had 8 years of second-hand access before that. The Congress was looking at the same information the President had, asked tough questions, and voted to authorize force.
You need to go back and find the President’s exact words about what you call “mushroom clouds” and “toy airplanes.” You are badly misrepresenting and overstating what he said.
Some people — well, one anyway — seems inordinately convinced that the Downing Street memo means something. In fact, it appears to be just one man’s opinion — a man who had his own axe to grind against the war. Tony Blair totally rejected the contents of the Downing Street memo. In fact, the lead article on page 5A of yesterday’s Eagle is headlined “Blair says Bush didn’t prejudge Iraq.” The Downing Street memo was buried because it was merely a piece of partisan opinion, not fact.
Anyway, as Matthews pointed out, democrat leaders still support the President. Naturally, they also have complaints about the details. All of us do.
Bio weapons and nuclear weapons and chemical weapons are all part of WMD and always were lumped together as WMD.
The entire legal argument from the first was Saddam’s thumbing his nose at 17 UN resolutions (not just one or another). Hillary even acknowledged when she voted to authorize force that efforts to get the UN to live up to its obligations would likely be thwarted by France and Russia. She was right again. When the UN scandalously and repeatedly failed to uphold its own legal high ground, as defined by those 17 resolutions against Saddam that it had already passed, there was nothing left to say what the law was. If the Iraq war is illegal, then it’s the fault of the UN for abandoning the law.
Apologies in advance for any repeats.
E. Ireland equates and argues well about the confusion and lack of proper intelligence leading up to our invasion of Iraq. It is true as well that political figures on both sides of the aisle did vote for ultimate regime change in Iraq. It is also true that parties on both sides were concerned about possible WMDS. But the orginal thread of this post is, “stay the course to where?”.
Preident bush launched this war. That he did so with the blessings of congress due to bad intelligence is irrelevant. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said “The Buck Stops Here”. Equivocating that everyone else was wrong too is an evasion of responsibility. And evasion of responsibility is becoming an alarming and all to common trait for Mr. bush.
I stand by my earlier post. ( you can go read it twice HA) Bush’s speech gave no sense of direction. He has comitted us to a war without any discernible end. And it is the opinion of a great many people both at home and abroad that that is just what he intended to do.
Apologies in advance for any repeats.
E. Ireland equates and argues well about the confusion and lack of proper intelligence leading up to our invasion of Iraq. It is true as well that political figures on both sides of the aisle did vote for ultimate regime change in Iraq. It is also true that parties on both sides were concerned about possible WMDS. But the orginal thread of this post is, “stay the course to where?”.
Preident bush launched this war. That he did so with the blessings of congress due to bad intelligence is irrelevant. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said “The Buck Stops Here”. Equivocating that everyone else was wrong too is an evasion of responsibility. And evasion of responsibility is becoming an alarming and all to common trait for Mr. bush.
I stand by my earlier post. ( you can go read it twice HA) Bush’s speech gave no sense of direction. He has comitted us to a war without any discernible end. And it is the opinion of a great many people both at home and abroad that that is just what he intended to do.
My God, we agreed on something. And I’m not a big fan of the UN either, but it’s the only game in town right now. My take is, as long as we’re talking, we aren’t fighting.
I’m not convinced about access to information about Saddam’s weapons, but I don’t have that info at my fingertips right now, so I’ll have to concede the point. Congress asked tough questions? I question that. Democratic lawmakers did what politicians do. They ducked for cover. At that point in our history, to have voted against the authorization of force would have been political suicide. I really have no respect for people who don’t stand on their principals. I think there’s a lot of that on both sides of the aisle.
As far as mushroom clouds and toy planes go, if I misrepresented and overstated it, I have a lot of company in the current administration. I do recall that those were some of the scare tactics used and they have since proven false.
The Downing Street Memo. You know, I really don’t know what to make of that. I’ve read it, and I’ve read a lot about it. Being fiercely anti-Bush, I hope it blows up in his face. But I personally wouldn’t stake my credibility on a thing like that. You have an excellent argument that it’s an opinion. I think under the right circumstances, it could be made to look pretty bad, but it would be a major stretch. As for what Blair says about it, come on, man, he’s Bush’s poodle. Blair runs a country whose gene pool needs a serious cleaning. And seriously with all due respect, please don’t quote the Eagle. Everything you’ve said in this post I find reasonable until you quote The Eagle.
As far as Saddam’s thumbing his nose at the UN, heck, we thumb our nose at the UN. Bolton is an excellent example. The only reason anybody wants him to go to the UN is to kick ass and take names (not that I think it’s a bad idea, I just oppose him for philosophical reasons..anti Bush). Irregardless, I’m opposed to the war in Iraq not because I oppose war; I just think we attacked the wrong country.
My complements on your post….I don’t agree with parts of it, but it’s well done and presents some excellent points. Entirely reasonable.
Jay,
I think Bush did say all that was politically possible to say. We’ll leave when Iraq can defend itself. Any more details plays into the hands of terrorists & insurgents.
Bush was pretty clear from the start that fighting terrorists would take a long time. They are scattered, well funded, and not-so-secretly supported by most Islamic countries. Expecting quick results is not realistic, even if you know what you’re up against. Part of what has extended the timetable is the lousy intelligence up front, the continuing lousy intelligence due to a lack of proper spies, and the infighting at the CIA, State Department, and DOD. Expecting a President to root out obstructive career professionals who thwart him from the bowels of bloated bureaucracies is unrealistic, too. Sure, he’s “in charge”, but all Presidents have noted the massive inertia of the government they “direct.”
Probably the best thing we could do for the country is to reduce the Federal Government until someone (the people, for example) can control it.
A final thought — There might be two good strategic reasons for entering and staying in Iraq — 1. Syria and 2. Iran. But it would be unwise for Bush to ever say so. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on what looks like mission creep, and you aren’t. History will have to sort that out, I guess.
Locke,
I understand Bush hatred a bit — at least by analogy. In my case, just hearing ex-President Carter talk is like fingernails on a blackboard to my ears. It’s visceral, no logic to it. I don’t like him. And I look unkindly at his weak efforts against Iran, whether fair or not.
Again, you are right about much of the vote authorizing action against Iraq being political. Many democrat yea votes were mostly intended to give the UN a message of US solidarity.
I remember listening to the way Bush talked about the cruise missiles and WMD. Bush didn’t say Iraq had missiles that could reach the USA. Can’t remember the exact words, but they have been regularly misrepresented. About WMD, rather than say Saddam was buying uranium, he said that the British had information that Saddam tried to buy some — quite an obvious difference; and it immediately struck me that, by making such a weak statement, he was admitting to considerable CIA uncertainty on the point. Then he made it clear that the threat was NOT imminent, but that waiting for it to become imminent was not a good plan. Granted, some later administration words were less guarded, and I always thought those would come home to bite him if substantial WMD were not found. I also listened to Powell’s addresses to the UN. He didn’t have much concrete evidence, and it struck me as weak. So I guess my continued support for Bush comes from never having been sucked very far into the WMD thing in the first place.
OK, I won’t quote the Eagle to you. Bad form!
For being a poodle, Blair sure took a lot of heat that cost him a bunch of political capital. Are you sure about that?
Your gene pool comment has considerable merit. They banished everyone with gonads to America and Australia 250 years ago.
We seem to have gotten closer to the crux of our differences, and I respect your viewpoints and those of several others who post on these blogs. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to back off a bit and get some work done.
Enjoyed it.
Ireland, come now…Carter?!?! I voted for him once, the first time I voted for a Democrat (I spent 4 years regreting it). Carter was a real joke; national malaise, killer bunnies, the Iranian hostage situation, brother Billy. But I give him credit for being a good Christian and an honorable man. Too bad he didn’t do anything worth while until after he got out of the whitehouse.
As far as what Bush actually said and what his administration insinuated, lets not be overly clever here. Condi didn’t actually say that Saddam was going to nuke us, but lets face it…that was the conclusion she meant for us to draw. Admittedly, it was easy in the paranoia days shortly after 9/11. And we don’t really want to go into all the implications Cheney made, do we? As for bad intel, I don’t believe it, I think it was doctored, I think Cheney was up to his neck in it. If Bush knew, he’s a crook and a liar. If he really didn’t know, we need to question his competence (being anti-Bush, I question his competence, heh, heh). We went to war on bad information, whether it came from a disfunctional intelligence community, or the whitehouse. And let’s face it. Bush is in charge which makes him ultimately responsible. I will admit though, that a lot of people, myself included, were surprised when no WMD were found. If it was all just a mistake, it was a whopper and a lot of people have died because of it. I don’t think as a nation, we can overlook a mistake like that.
I think the one that really dissapointed me was Powell. I always liked and had the greatest respect for him till he whored himself at the UN. He knew the info he used was bad, he argued against it, but he took his marching orders and went with it.
“Your gene pool comment has considerable merit. They banished everyone with gonads to America and Australia 250 years ago.” (God, I wish I’d thought that one up)
As far as I’m concerned, Britian has always been our lap dog. When we say jump, they ask how high on the way up. Personal experience with the British, I find them snotty, snobbish, boorish, and pretty much full fo themselves.
Happy 4th, you and yours enjoy the holiday.
The first Bush said in his memoirs (of the reason he didn’t go) that he felt going into Bagdad and overthrowing Saddam would create the very mess we are in now! However the first Bush was not obligated to Cheney & Halliburton for his election. Even though I am a devout democrat, I believe the first Bush was a Statesman of the highest caliber who thought in terms of what is actually best for our country and the rest of the world.
Remember all the “orange alerts” right before the election?
Notice how there aren’t any now?
Slowly, the American people wake from the dream world of the Bushistas . . .
They wake and they aren’t happy with what they see.
Hey, Joe Williams and Nathan–
You’re so gung-ho to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”
Well, dudes, nobody’s stopping you from SIGNING UP!
If you haven’t noticed, the Army hasn’t met recruiting quotas for several months running . . .
Twister,you miserable cur,
Is life such a blur,
That you wish to end it all here?
Violin fiddle know
You have emptied you spleen
On a writer not known as serene!
You who call yourself Ali. I have witnessed your belittlement of my faith and the faith of my fathers. We of the faith seek to live in your country in peace. Your weak attempt at humor offends. I see none of my brothers using your Christian faith as a source of humor or belittlement. We treat you of the Christian faith with respect. Why do you then, treat us with none? Does this give you a sense of power?
It is those of your ilk that foster hatred and mistrust between our two cultures. Who then is the true faith of peace? Certianly not yours if your rabid spewing is any example. I call on your Christian brothers to ostracize and disallow you. You are an abomination to my faith. Christians, go in peace. Please take your dog, “Ali” with you.
You who call yourself ahmed. Why do you belittle me and my fathers by calling me Christian? We of the faith seek only to live in this country in peace, while infiltrating its communities and undermining its culture, using its freedoms to support our pilots in training as we build our Islamic bomb. Your weak attempt to diminish my words offends. I only repeat the words of our teachers and leaders, Muqtada al-Sadr, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin. If I avoid reading Arabic, I also can pretend to see none of my brothers using the Christian faith as a source of humor or belittlement. We treat the Christian kafir with the “respect” those najis who dare to touch the Qur’an deserve. Why do you then treat me with none? Does this give you a sense of power?
It is those of your ilk that practice taqiyya and kitman between our two cultures. Most truthfully, my brother, ours is the true faith of peace, taught on the point of our spears. To those who submit : peace. To those who do not : death or dhimmitude, as in the Sudan. Your use of taqiyya is better than mine, but do not call me a despised Christian again. Certainly my “rabid spewing” cannot be an example of a Christian, since I was taught at the Dar Al-Hijra Islamic Center in Virginia. We must ostracize and disallow the infidel dogs together; or are you a “moderate” abomination to Islam?
Moderate or taqiyya, which is it for you?
??? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? (??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???-?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????. ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? (???? ??????? ???????) ??????? ????