Predictably, the debate over a president’s foreign policy credentials has spread from the Democrats to the Republicans, with some among the latter willing to distance themselves from the Bush years:
“We’ve got to walk more humbly and a lot more wisely than the current president,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. “I really believe this next president needs to go in with knowledge on foreign policy and not learn it on the job” — a swipe at GOP rivals and former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., mocked President Bush’s warm relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a holdover from the Soviet era: “When I look into Mr. Putin’s eyes, I see three letters: a ‘K,’ and a ‘G’ and a ‘B.’”
“Is he trying to make problems for the United States of America? Absolutely, yes,” McCain added.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
72 Comments
Twenty years from now the honorable President Bush will be fondly remembered as one of our greatest presidents. He took us to war after the terrible surprise attack on 911. He will be an American icon.
And your delusional!!
The other Republicans seem to think that the voters will forget that they are Republicans too and spent the last 8 years in lock step with Bush only to come out now and say “hey I am different”. We ain’t as stupid (I hope) as the Republicans think we are.
Bush will be an American “icon” alright. An icon to stupidity and hubris.
Short of an economic miracle, the GOP is toast. If you think instability in the stock market, the credit crunch, and the mortgage melt-down are going to go away, you’re either conservative or crazy. Looks to me like we’re headed into a nasty recession or worse. Bush and Republicans have driven this country into the ground and I seriously doubt if voters are going to forget or over look the fact.
The timing couldn’t be better. It’s Bush’s watch, no way to blame the upcoming recession on Clinton. If the economy goes south before the next election, republicans are toast.
Well, maybe someone other than Bush can get the European Union to explain its finds of Iraqi WMDs someday?
It will be left to President Clinton to clean up the messes (poopy diapers and all) of the Republican President and Congress.
Fortunately, she will have all the new powers afforded her by the Patriot Act and Bush’s own power grabs and a rubberstamp Democratic Congress.
Instead of holding hearings and appointing special prosecutors she will merely declare America’s enemies ‘noncombatants’ and whisk them away to never never land where they can all play in their poopie diapers together.
The next president will be from the Democratic Party and will have extraordinary executive powers compliments of bushco! Unless Congress does the right thing and makes the changes so no one branch of government is allowed that power!
The next president will also have a brain of their own and no need of keeping a few idiots nearby to ensure someone has a few brain cells at the ready.
The next Democratic president should concentrate on one thing and that is the total destruction of the Republican Party by whatever means necessary. That is one thing I kind of like about Hillary. She is mean and very hard on her enemies. She is not afraid to do things to people that oppose her. She is not afraid to tell somebody like Todd Tihart from Kansas “you want that farm bill?” or “you want those federal funds for Kansas highways?” and letting him know that he will play ball in court or else she will jerk the rug from under him because she has nothing to lose as she- nor any Democrat- will ever win Kansas anyway. That is what we need to do. No more Mr(s) Nice Guy!
President Clinton will redifine “shock and awe”.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Republican karma is about to be reaped.
And if Hillary Clinton does win the presidency but yet the Senate and the House have narrow margins, then how will the governing be done?
The time for partisanship is over. The Republicans were the party that started the personal attacks when they harassed Bill Clinton for the entire 8 years he was in the White House (and they continue to foam at the mouth to this day).
But for the sake of the country, someone needs to be the bigger person and stop all this bickering. A house divided cannot stand.
With the election in 2008, I hope the voters will boot out those that have kept this country divided for too long. I have found most average Americans just want to have a job with a living wage, take care of their families and be responsible for their own personal lives.
It depends on the final two presidential candidates if we continue down this path of self-destruction of being divided or if we are lucky enough to get two candidates that can be a part of the bigger picture and actually do what is best for the country.
Only time will tell.
Well, maybe someone other than Bush can get the European Union to explain its finds of Iraqi WMDs someday?Posted by: Catherine
Let us all hope history records the truth about your statement:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD’S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
“…intelligence reports show…”
That pretty much proves the point. Bush lied.
CONTEXT!
‘Words of Mass Destruction’http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp“In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we’ve tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.”
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that…”
“…intelligence reports show…”
“There is unmistakable evidence that…”
“Intelligence reports indicate…”
Again, the Bush admin provided the reports, the intelligence that we know now was phoney.
Bush lied people keep on dying.
Otlandish,
All the worlds major intelligence agencies were saying the same thing.
Bush didn’t supply those reports. He didn’t make them up. He presented them.
NO, Bush and the neocons doctored them.
Remember Plame?
They struck out at anyone who called the reports false.
Remember ‘yellowcake’? Bush used it in a speech even after he knew it wasn’t true.
You can spin the “interpretation” of the words the democratic leaders made before the war all you want. You can turn it into a theologian research project like researching the bible.
But it’s all in the Congressional Record, and like President Bush,
Will all be a piece of history.
Outlandish,
You make claim:
“Bush and the neocons doctored them.”
Now this is where you show your proof.
Bush didn’t know it was false. It was from British intelligence. Is that the only so called “proof” you have that Bush doctored the intillegence reports?
So far, it appears as if you are the one more interested in doctoring things to support your own hatred.
Alrighty, looks like it’s another cut and paste weekend!
Here we go! They are going to come fast, but please stop to read.
The truth is not hatred.
But it does sting when all you believe is falsehoods put out by the Republicans.
France:
French Foreign Minister Galouzeau De Villepin: “Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
Villepin: “Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and yperite.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
Villepin: “In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
French Intelligence Supports Parts Of Secretary Powell’s Address To The UN Security Council. “Powell presented the Security Council with satellite images, intercepted phone conversations and other evidence which he said supported Washington’s claim that Baghdad was hiding mass destruction weapons. French Defense Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau said Thursday that French intelligence backed up parts of Powell’s presentation. ‘There are a certain number of questions evoked by Mr. Powell that we had information on.’” (Christine Ollivier, “Chirac Says U.S. Evidence On Iraq Does Not Change French Position,” The Associated Press, 2/6/03)
Germany:
In February 2003, The German Ambassador To The U.S. Said Iraq Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Ambassador Wolfgang Ishinger: “I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have – that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.” (NBC’s “Today,” 2/26/03)
German Intelligence Services Predicted That Iraq Would Have Nuclear Bomb Capabilities Within Three Years. “A report prepared by the German intelligence services in December 2000, based on defectors’ reports, satellite imagery, and aerial surveillance, predicted that Iraq will have three nuclear bombs by 2005. But that may be too optimistic. Before the Gulf War no one had a clue how far advanced Saddam’s nuclear weapons program was.” (Robert Kagan And William Kristol, “What To Do About Iraq,” The Weekly Standard, 1/21/02)
Russia:
Russian Intelligence Reports That Iraq Was Planning Terrorist Attacks Against The United States. “President Vladimir V. Putin said … that Russia gave intelligence reports to the Bush administration suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s government was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States or against American targets overseas. … Mr. Putin said Russia’s intelligence services received and passed along the information after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and before the American-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. He did not give details of the nature of the intelligence or the type of attacks reportedly being prepared. … Mr. Putin said Russian ’special services’ had received information about plans for terrorist attacks ‘more than once.’” (Steven Lee Myers, “Putin Says U.S. Was Alerted To Possible Attacks By Iraq,” The New York Times, 6/19/04)
Great Britain:
Great Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair: “[W]hat we know from what has been going on there for a long period of time is not just the chemical, biological weapons capability, but we know that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons capability.” (Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping The Peace, Camp David, MD, 9/7/02)
Blair: “[I] was just reading coming over here the catalog of attempts by Iraq to conceal its weapons of mass destruction, not to tell the truth about it over — not just over a period of months, but over a period of years. Now, that’s why the issue is important.” (Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping The Peace, Camp David, MD, 9/7/02)
Blair: “There isn’t any doubt that Iraq has had weapons of mass destruction … That is not in dispute, not by anybody.” (Jane Wardell, “Blair: No Doubt Saddam Had Banned Weapons,” The Associated Press, 4/28/03)
Italy:
Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi: “I believe that the moment has arrived to find out where all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein said he had, where they ended up.” (Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, President Bush Meets With Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, Washington, DC, 1/30/03)
Berlusconi: “[Iraq has] to avail themselves of the biological, chemical weapons that we know were available as Saddam Hussein. Therefore, on the basis of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein has to reveal and account for the weapons that we know he has. So the decision on face rests in his hands.” (Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, President Bush Meets With Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, Washington, DC, 1/30/03)
Australia:
Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard: “Australia’s position concerning Iraq is very clear. We believe a world in which weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of rogue states, with the potential threat of them falling into the hands of terrorists, is not a world that Australia — if we can possibly avoid it — wants to be part of.” (Prime Minister John Howard, President Bush Meets With Prime Minister Howard Of Australia, 2/10/03)
Howard: “And that is the fundamental reason why Australia has taken the position she has. And it’s the fundamental reason why we believe the goals that the United States set of disarming Iraq are proper goals and they are goals that the entire world should pursue.” (The White House, President Bush Meets With Prime Minister Howard Of Australia, 2/10/03)
INTELLIGENCE REPORTS SHOW NO MANIPULATION OF INTELLIGENCE
The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence:
“The Committee Did Not Find Any Evidence That Administration Officials Attempted To Coerce, Influence Or Pressure Analysts To Change Their Judgments Related To Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Capabilities.” (“The Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
“The Committee Found No Evidence That The IC’s [Intelligence Community] Mischaracterization Or Exaggeration Of The Intelligence On Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) Capabilities Was The Result Of Political Pressure.” (“The Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
Nathan???
Why don’t you copy/paste some of the IAEA’s reports?
I suggest reading this, instead of Nathan’s snipped quotes from various politicians, etc.
‘Piecing together the story of the weapons that weren’t’http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm“Hans Blix, U.N. inspector, says Washington’s “virtual reality” about Iraq eventually collided with “our old-fashioned ordinary reality.” “
Former Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay:
Kay: “Based On The Intelligence That Existed, I Think It Was Reasonable To Reach The Conclusion That Iraq Posed An Imminent Threat.” (NPR’s “Weekend Edition,” 1/25/04)
Kay: “[A]ll I Can Say Is If You Read The Total Body Of Intelligence In The Last 12 To 15 Years That Flowed On Iraq, I Quite Frankly Think It Would Be Hard To Come To A Conclusion Other Than Iraq Was A Gathering, Serious Threat To The World With Regard To WMD.” (David Kay, Committee On The Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 1/28/04)
Pray tell Nathan, why were no weapons of mass destruction found?
Why did all these ‘independent’ intelligence sources report such absurd fallacies?
Connect the dots Nathan.
Who is responsible for all that intelligence being so very very wrong?
I say its Bush and the neocons behind him.
How do YOU account for all of this wrong information presented as fact?
Still waiting Nathan.
What is your explanation for the French, British, Australian, German, and US intelligence being so wrong about WMD in Iraq?
“When I look into Mr. Putin’s eyes, I see three letters: a ‘K,’ and a ‘G’ and a ‘B.’”
Which explains why Bush sees him as a soulmate.
Nathan has all kinds of cut-n-paste but no answers.
I could be wrong but at least I’ve an idea about what’s gone down the last few years.
Nathan seems to accept the Red Party Line as truth.
“Former Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay:”
Posted by: Nathan | August 19, 2007 at 01:54 PM
“Former” = in Iraq, LONG ago, 1991 to 1992.
The UN Inspectors only returned to Iraq in November of 2002. At that time, they proved that various conjectures regarding Saddam and WMD were false. The quotes regarding various Democrats claiming that Hussein had WMD were from the period of time PRIOR to the inspectors returning.
As has been posted in the past, it was reasonable to assume that Iraq had resumed a WMD program since they refused inspections in the late 90’s and up to November 2002.
Saddam WANTED his enemies and the people of Iraq to think that he had WMD. The inspectors were well on their way to proving what we all know now – Saddam Hussein was a paper tiger.
To quote various Democrat’s statements from pre-inspections in disingenuous. At that time, it was reasonable to consider the possibility of WMD. After the inspections, there was no reason to go to war.
Bush received an authorization to use force against Saddam as a last resort. As events played out, the UN Inspectors had to leave Iraq on the eve of “shock and awe.”
Had Bush waited another month or so, 3,900 Americans would still be alive and we would not have wasted $675 billion.
Those are the facts – no spin.
Oh really WS Clark? Prior to 2002?
Here we go again!
Pay attention to the dates WS Clark!
Sen. Clinton: “I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States.” (Senator Hillary Clinton, Press Conference, January 22, 2003)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “I Believe That Iraq Does Have Chemical And Biological Weapons, And They Are A Threat To Many Nations In The Region, But Not To The United States.” (PBS’ “Newshour,” 2/25/03)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “I Would Be Surprised If [Hussein] Didn’t Have’ Chemical And Biological Weapons.” (Mort Kondracke, “Is Howard Dean For Real? Well, Not Entirely,” Roll Call, 1/27/03)
Sen. Dodd: “[O]f Course We’re Safer [Without Saddam]. I Mean, Consider The Option Of Him Still Being There, Knowing That He Has Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Knowing How Committed He Was To Do Everything He Could To Be Harmful To The United States And Our Allies.” (CNBC’s “Capital Report,” 12/18/03)
Sen. Dodd: “[I] Think We Need To Operate On The Assumption Because Saddam Hussein Has Used These Weapons In The Past, That They May Still Be Out There, And Getting Ahold Of Those Scientists And Others Who Can Provide That Information To Us I Think Is Critically Important.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/29/03)
Sen. Dodd: “[T]he Longer We Wait, The Greater Risk … Posed By Iraq.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/29/03)Sen. Dodd: “Obviously, There Is A Threat In Iraq. We All Know That.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/7/03, p. S3356)
Sen. Dodd: “Yes, Iraq Is A Threat …” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/7/03, p. S3356)
Sen. Dodd: “I Believe Saddam Hussein Poses A Global Threat, And That Certainly Needs To Be Addressed.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/7/03, p. S3359)
Sen. Dodd: “I Certainly, Like Many Here, Have Never Doubted Whether Iraq Possessed Weapons Of Mass Destruction At All, And I Think The Evidence You [Colin Powell] Presented [To The United Nations] … Was Done In A Very Effective And Systematic Way.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/03)
Do I really need to keep going before you libs realize that Bush didn’t make this stuff up and the Democrats supported him?
If there is anyone living in a false reality it is those who continue to say that Bush lied and misled the Democrats…
Give me a break
Saddam Hussein did not even control all of his OWN country – how could he have been a threat to the USA?
Just because a some Democrats bought the Bush/Cheney/Rice cherry picked intelligence does not make it fact.
Remember, Senators and Congresspersons do not get NIE’s, only the President and his staff.
Again Nathan, how do YOU account for all that intelligence being wrong?
Nathan, cat got your tongue?
Otlandish,
When you are able to finish your first argument we can move onto the second.
No answer? OK. That’s what I thought.
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003.
7 March 2003 | New York, USAStatement to the United Nations Security Council’The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
Hey Nathan–Why don’t you try to make a case for your boy instead of misdirecting?
Posted by: delsol | August 19, 2007 at 02:34 PM
Ignore the Outlandish troll Nathan, he doesn’t have a point to make, he just wants to be disruptive.
He [Augustus Stupidus] will be an American icon.Posted by: American Way | August 19, 2007 at 01:03 AM
LOL
THAT, sir, will depend entirely on the success of your party’s attempts to rewrite history (see Nathan’s stabs at stripping context out above…which, btw, is hilarious coming from Mr. Context re: the Bible).
LOL. Augustus Stupidus will be to “American icon” what Alfred E. Newman is to “American icon” unless you guys can successfully revise American history.
LOL. Hilarious.
Nathan…
Think about this,
‘Piecing together the story of the weapons that weren’t’http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm“The 93-page classified U.S. report had more qualifiers than the White Paper. But Wald says her commission learned that only 17 Congress members read the lengthier estimate. On Oct. 10-11, the two houses voted overwhelmingly to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq.”
Bush has no foreign policy – he only mouthed what Dick Cheney told him to say. Cheney wants control of the Middle East oil and that is the only thing that matters. Everyone knows it but some Republicans still try to protect Bush and gang from any criticisms.
The future of our country depends on our ability to get off the dependence of Middle Eastern oil. Short of that goal, our future will not be very bright or prosperous when the chickens come home to roost for this insane Iraq war.
God bless you President Bush.
God DAMN you George Bush
God Forgive you Pres. Bush!
Funny to watch Republican Presidential candidates try to walk the tightrope of repudiating Bush’s foreign policy while enthusiastically supporting everything he’s currently doing.
Quite a trick, that. Once Petraeus has delivered his lead pipe cinch happy talk before Congress in September, it’ll be interesting to see whether Executive intimidation is enough to keep restive Republicans in the fold.
Iraq is the Mother of All Messes. If Republicans jump ship, their earlier judgment will be called into question. If they don’t jump ship, their present and future political judgment will be called into question. An unenviable, but well-deserved, hole they’ve dug themselves.
An unenviable, but well-deserved, hole they’ve dug themselves.
Posted by: CF2K
Oh I don’t know, why can’t they just be like all the democrats who voted to go to war and make themselves out to be blameless victims of the president?
It seems to have worked for them.
Blood on all their hands….
The best thing Bush will be remembered for is the total demise of the Republican Party as a national political force. Not only will 2008 be the Democrats to lose in the White House but I will also predict gains in both the House and Senate for the Democrats. And if the Democrats play their cards right and actually SERVE the people that elected them including the working people, they can build an enduring majority. If they however FAIL to end Iraq, FAIL to reform healthcare and FAIL to help the working people, we will FAIL to show up for them in 2010 and 2012 and I would even advocate a 3rd party- like a Labour Party- for us. This is really their last chance and I hope they understand that. But if they do what they should, they will enjoy a long long term of majority party while the Republicans will see their power shrink to only a few states in the midwest and southeast.
“And if Hillary Clinton does win the presidency but yet the Senate and the House have narrow margins, then how will the governing be done?”
She doesn’t need anymore than a thin majority and a backbone. She can very simply tell any Democrats that think about getting out of line that if they want favours, money for their districts and committee assignments, they will play ball her way. And if the Republicans try to obstruct with a fillibuster, she should bring out the same “nuclear option” that the Republicans used against the Democrats last year.
Hotdog1,
Bush owns this war. Plain and simple. Had it in mind well before taking office, hyped the existing intelligence, made up stuff where necessary, and systematically ignored all counsel from his allies, domestic and foreign.
Bush himself claims sole power to wage war. And you want to give Democrats a share of the humble pie? Get real. Bush to Congress: fund my war, sit down, and shut up.
Fine by me. This White House has acted as if they have sole jurisdiction over foreign policy and the waging of war. Fine. The mess is theirs. Theirs and theirs alone.
Twenty years from now the honorable President Bush will be fondly remembered as one of our greatest presidents. He took us to war after the terrible surprise attack on 911. He will be an American icon.Posted by: American Way
As you said Mr. Way. They will build tall statues of Mr. Bush. His name will grace schools throughout the land. And he will someday too, belong to the ages.
If Bush had been president on December 7, 1941, the US would have invaded Korea.
If we had today’s democrats in Congress in 1941, we would have lost the war.
They would have voted to change their minds in 1943.
I wish the Right Wingers would make up their minds about the Democrats voting to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq.
One day they try to blame the Democrats along with Bush for the War, the next day the criticize the Dems for being against the war.
Make up your minds.
We ask the same of the democrats.
WS Clark,
It is because as soon as it was more politically advantageous to be against the war… they all reversed their statements.
It is not us who need to make up our minds, but the Democrats.
It’s real easy; should there be any measure of success in Iraq, REpubs. will sing praises to bush for going it alone. If it turns out to be the total failure that it is looking like, there will be plenty of blame to go around. Nothing ever changes.