११ नोव्हेंबर, २००५
"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."
I'm glad to see Bush is forcefully defending the Iraq war. He needs to do that more.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
I don't get how all these people who THEMSELVES voted to support going to war now say it's all bogus. They're basically admitting that they themselves are either 1. irresponsible or 2. a bunch of dumb*sses.
Yes! He should also more frequently encourage Iraqis to put aside their differences for the sake of their country.
Fortunately, Secretary Rice just did that.
I think it will be painfully (to the dems) obvious by 2008 that liberating Iraq was a good thing. Whether the GOP benefits or not is the question. Winning the Cold War basically opened the door for a draft dodgin foreign affairs idiot to become President. And I have no doubt that 911 got Bush reelected.
911 got Bush elected... how? Because everyone liked what he did, or because they thought Kerry would have been disastrous at the helm?
t's past due.
Amen, EddieP!
I have been out all day, but just before I left, I wrote on my blog that this was surely the most forceful speech he's ever given, save the post-9/11 (a masterpiece), and the recent foreign policy speech which was woefully underreported.
I will try to do a reverse-Fisk just as soon as I c/p the transcript.
P.S.: He mentioned Theo van Gogh, and "the Jews" (not the Israelis) as being the object of certain people's ire. FINALLY. Enough pussyfooting.
Cheers,
Victoria
First, the attacks on the administration are not baseless. President Bush's assertion that the Congress had the same amount of information the administration did is simply untrue. Congress was frankly sold the same bill of goods the U.N. was, and Colonel Powell now admits his U.N. speech is the most embarrassing moment in his career. As a side note, a grant of authority is not equivalent to asking that it be used indiscriminately.
Second, the intelligence and tactics used to sell the war were slanted at best and flat out false at worst (aluminum tubes? mushroom clouds?) If you disagree, read the speech by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (no shrinking violet and not a Democrat). (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm)
The Democrats (and Rep moderates) are correct that the intelligence systems and method by which the Congress was informed with regard to same need to be investigated and changed to find out what went wrong. To say we should just forget about these problems and simply move on is ignorant.
On the other hand, we must stay in Iraq until they can handle themselves without posing a threat to their neighbors and us.
Let's fight the same battles over and over, yippee!
(for the record, FDR KNEW about Pearl Harbor in advance, he should be impeached!)
(and Lincoln let far more troops be slaughtered than necessary, someone should do something about him, maybe while he's enjoying a play)
(and Washington, nobody could be as good as he seemed, he was a land-owning, slave-owning white male, take him off the dollar bill!)
Also, the proper position regarding the President's defense of his Iraq policy is to say that it was highly unusual (and therefore suspect) for him to use a Veteran's Day speech to make a political point.
(at least that seems to be how the usual suspects are covering his speech, why engage in the substance when you can attack the venue)
and before I forget to all the Veteran's that read this blog, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, (on to infinity)
(and double goes to their families, sometimes it's even harder for them than on the enlisted)
He hit it out of the park. Someone said his strategy was to wait long enough to let the opposition bury itself (it's kind of working) and didn't want to appear to be in a neverending argument.
Amen, Victoria.
He had mentioned Van Gogh in his last speech though. Isn't it ironic that he was the first public figure inside or out of Hollywood to do so?
Ann,
Amen to the President forcefully defending the war. The intelligence regarding WMD is remarkably clear and is only being muddied for Democratic partisan purposes. Reid, Kennedy and Kerry should hang their heads in shame at the outrageous claims that they make, showing no proof. These are shameful men, not worthy of holding any job that demands integrity, much less an honorable position as US Senator. What kind of decent human being, states that the President "exaggerated the intelligence"(Kennedy today on the Senate floor) and gives not one shred of supporting evidence to back up these treasonous charges? Why do Democrats get away with this?
Wisjoe-
You are playing in the same Democratic gutter - Making your statements with no hard evidence of lying (high standard to prove, so just go for confusing people), and quoting hack partisans like Steve Clemons and the (laughably lacking in integrity) Col Wilkerson is more of the same Democratic LACK of evidence - just throw eveything out, see if you can confuse enough people until it reaches critical mass and the public isn't certain which way is up.
If you had hard evidence, not just a purely partisan (that means thinking the worst of somebody's motives because you don't like them)motive, then you would present hard evidence - transcripts, videos, diaries, witnesses.
And by the way - here is an example of you muddying the water:
-"and Colonel Powell now admits his U.N. speech is the most embarrassing moment in his career"-
is not the same as Powell lying or "confessing" to exaggerations. But, you threw it out there as one more thing for the overloaded minds of people to question. Which is pretty disingenuous. Which means you must have gone to law school. . .
Mark -
Democrats saw the SAME INTELLIGENCE - get over it.
The intelligence was not completely right - that's the fault of the intelligence community, NOT the President (Clinton and Bush).
Your argument is with the war and not Bush.
If you make the charge that the Senate did not see the same intelligence - PROVE IT or sit down.
It's one thing to be like Mark and Wisjoe and not like the war for whatever reason - it is DISHONEST and contemptible to make charges about the integrity of another person that you can't prove just because it makes you feel better about your position.
Q. How do these Democrats sleep at night?
A. Very well, as they aren't bothered by petty things like scruples or conscience.
-and I still remember Bill Clinton telling Larry King, "we knew he had them (WMD) in 98'" - the real fun begins when Iran has nuclear weapons. The US will have a presence in Iraq for many, many years simply as a means of containment. It will be interesting to see how the Dems justify that.
When I was 6, I believed in santa Claus. So did everyone else I knew who was 6. Not long after, we all learned that there was no Santa Claus. Now if I had continued writing letters to the North Pole after that, I would have been subject to some ridicule. Would it have been any answer for me to say, but you believed in Santa Claus too?
I understand why the President and his supporters want to keep talking about everyone's state of knowledge in October 2002. Although not exactly equal, it was within a ballpark.
But what was thought to be true in October 2002 was known to be seriously questionable on March 1, 2003. The inspectors had proven that our intelligence was massively flawed -- and while absence of evidence may not always be evidence of absense, if someone tells you that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, and you go there, and there's neither a house nor any sign of a house, surely everything that person has said to you must be called into question.
The IAEA came out before the war and stated, flatly, that Iraq's nuclear program was non-existent. the VP went on Russert's show and said, essentially, 'no, it's there, and we know it.' I'm not saying that the VP was intentionally lying. I am saying that he cannot claim that everyone thought what he thought at that time.
You know, if the Pres and his supporters don't want to keep having this argument, maybe they shouldn't go around restarting it.
Does it matter? I don't know, but I think we're all better off if our public officials acknowledge mistakes, at the least. It may not change what is the best route forward, but, well, if the Pres wants people like me to support his efforts going forward, maybe he ought to admit that a mistake was made. Instead of attacking us.
Mark -
quoting Democrats that have nothing but partisan reasons to say what they say is not proof.
The Presidential daily briefings are not necessarily filled with different - get that - different information. In other (smaller) words - just because the President gets more information on overall intelligence than anyone else in the country DOES NOT MEAN that he received any information contradicting whatever information the Senate got. Get it?
In other words, not ONE shred of information has come forth to say that the President got ANYTHING different in his information than the Senate got in theirs. And, unless he says so, or (fat chance) someone can produce a written, factual statement showing otherwise - there is no proof.
Mark - wishing it doesn't make it so.
The Democrats and their apologists cannot, and let me repeat this - CANNOT - prove that the White House had intelligence telling them anything different about Iraq
(there's that word again - different - that is trouble for lying Democrats) than what the Senate intelligence Committee had.
So, you and the partisans are left with no proof of your shameful allegations. You cannot convince the American public on just the facts, so you must resort to muddying the water with maybe's and, in the case of Kennedy and Reed, going so far as to state that the President "exaggerated and manipulated" - when they have NO PROOF.
People that do this are described in the Old Testament as false witnesses - ones who, while not necessarily "lying", are willing to leave people a false and unprovable impression of someone else. They are despicable human beings that pollute our social fabric.
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness . . .
WOW!
Hard to believe that the following is in tomorrow's (Sat., Nov. 12) Washington Post, but it makes my point for me beautifully.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html
- - - Even harder to believe is that this was written by Dana "always put the article in the most anti-Bush-inference possible" Milbank:
"The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements."
- And:
"The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."
First, the attacks on the administration are not baseless.
This isn't going to come to a good end.
President Bush's assertion that the Congress had the same amount of information the administration did is simply untrue.
And you know this how? Or rather, and you imagine this why? As people point out, over and over, Congress, the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, Al Gore, Hans Blix, and on and on, spoke consistently of the same things Bush actually said --- as opposed to the fever dreams that are sometimes ascribed to him now.
Congress was frankly sold the same bill of goods the U.N. was, --- in 1998 when regime change in Iraq became official US policy --- and Colonel Powell --- would that be Secretary Powell, GEN Powell, first black Secretary of State, highest ranking black soldier in history, very nearly the only man ever to serve two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? why the demotion? --- now admits his U.N. speech is the most embarrassing moment in his career.
Well, I guess I think 9/11 should have been worse, but he's entitled to his opinion.
As a side note, a grant of authority is not equivalent to asking that it be used indiscriminately.
No, but a grant of authority does mean that the authority has been granted. If you don't like it, vote Bush out. ... oh, wait, tried that and it didn't work.
Surprised to see this response in the Washingtion post to Bush's speech.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html
it's enough to say that Clinton didn't take us into this incredibly disastrous war.
So what you're saying is
(a) that you believe Clinton, who has consistently said, before and after the war, that he believed Saddam had WMD too, and signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, is therefore a better president because he believed in the threat and didn't act;
(b) that you so lack knowledge of history that you imagine roughly 2500 fatalities in three years of combat, while bringing about the collapse of two enemy governments, enabling fledgling democracies for something like 50 million people, breaking up the lines of supply and communications of our primary adversary, getting at least two major WMD problems to be resolved with no war at all, constitutes an "incredibly disastrous" war; and,
(c) that people can't see the political expediency --- hell, crass opportunism and frank sedition --- of now claiming that Bush was being misleading when he said the same things that Clinton had, and believed the Clinton-appointed DCI when he said it was a "slam dunk"?
Man, is it stupid night tonight or what?
Mark,
I agree wholeheartedly with your earlier point:
"the person who is ultimately responsible for taking the USA to war of choice is Bush." And, Mark, I believe that he was upfront in his reasons for doing so, not at all lying to the American people.
And, you may believe that the quote from Andy Card means that the President wanted to go into Iraq for a long time before he actually did and that he did for political reasons.
Fine. That's fair. But Mark, Im afraid that you are not serving yourself well with your choice of quotes as proof texts that the President lied. Nothing you have used thus far supports in any FACTUAL way the notion that the President lied or exaggerated before going into Iraq.
Please read the quotes thoroughly - nothing in the Washington Post quotes that you cited states that the intelligence community thought that there were NO weapons, only that some intelligence reports disagreed on what KIND of weapons, and what their potential uses might be. Again, the third paragraph in the article said it all:
". . . Intelligence agencies OVERWHELMINGLY BELIEVED that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,. . ."
Stringing together bits and pieces of opinions from partisans doesn't substantiate proof. It merely leads one down the road to conspiracy theories:
--- basing everything on the initial belief that the guy I disagree with is "evil" or "bad", anything is possible from that because the bad guy's motives must be suspect. Then the novice conspiracy theorist begins to connect dots that can't logically or reasonably be connected at all. But that doesn't matter, because, well, I just "know it's true" . . . remember Vince Foster? . . .)
The point I am making is that if you want to oppose the war, or anything that President Bush does, knock yourself out, but please do it honestly, with facts and figures and not in the company of our national embarrassments such as Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy.
These ARE the facts:
1)The Senate had the same intelligence that the President had. Why do we know this? Because:
--- the President said so - why should we not believe him, and instead believe Ted Kennedy (he would never lie?) or Harry Reid (he would never lie?) or John Kerry (he would never lie?) or Steve Clemons (he would never lie?) or anyone that was not in the White House, and cannot give us FACTS otherwise.
--- several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee said that they saw all of the intelligence relating to Iraq.
--- the fact that the President receives more intelligence overall DOES NOT equal DIFFERENT intelligence than what the Seante received. There is no proof that there was any DIFFERENT intelligence.
--- faulty intelligence is not "manipulted intelligence".
--- for every claim of "pressure" on the intelligence community, 3x as many verifications of "no pressure" will come forth. Who gets to judge who is right? Only those that agree with your viewpoint?
2)Senate Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated that they are looking for cover on their votes to support the President's use of force against Iraq, and will do so even unconscionably, without any shame, and seek for partisan advantage to hurt the President, even dishonestly.
Come away from the DARK SIDE, Mark; you're better than that.
Mark,
2 more things . .
just reread a few comments; can't believe I missed your thoughts re: all of these things in Iraq (fledgling Democracy, etc.) could have been achieved without the war. (Am I getting your intent right?), and
You've got to get away from MediaMatters for a little while ... David's easy to tear into for misrepresenting quotes and twisting words - even several liberals I know
don't trust his site to be accurate in it's partial presentations or for Brock to give enough of the full story. One of my liberal friends was completely embarrassed in a friendly debate in her college poli sci class because she had come prepared using info she had taken from Brock's site . . . only to be demolished by a conservative counterpointer who came with the full quotes in context and pointed out that what was said in the quotes she used from the site were wildly out of context. Lot of tears - even though I'm conservative, I felt bad for her.
So here's the way I understand it from the "Bush Lied" crowd:
Democrats are asserting that Bush was privvy to information and intelligence that no one else saw. They are guessing that this information Bush saw said that there were in fact no WMDs.
Even though, by their own admission, they haven't seen this intelligence, and are therefore GUESSING, they are still able to state with certainty that "Bush Lied." ???????
Other than the obvious problems with this point-of-view, what about every other world leader who also believed Saddam had WMDs? Were they all lying? What about Clinton? (And saying "Yeah but Clinton didn't go to war" doesn't answer the question.)
Nice to see that the know-nothing isolationist wing of the Democratic Party has such vocal proponents on the net.
"And this line about 'sending the wrong signal to the troops' is amazing in itself. Isn't it very condescending, as if the troops are not being able to figure out what's going on?"
No, it's not condescending, because they know what happened in the Vietnam War. Congress cut off all funding for the war, and the SV regime collapsed immediately. They do not want to fight in a war that Congress will summarily end one day for political purposes.
Yes, knoxgirl, how do they know now what they did not know then, as Rumsfeld might ask. And if they KNOW the president has intelligence they don't, why didn't they ask to see it in the last 12 years of war talk and throwing Tomahawks at Baghdad?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा