snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » War, What Is It Good For? » Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics
Open Mike Night
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Open Mike Night     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Although it doesn't seem very tasteful to do at a Veteran's Day Speech:

Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics

quote:

President Bush forcefully attacked critics of the war in Iraq on Friday, accusing them of trying to rewrite history and saying they are undercutting American forces on the front lines.

He's moving from the defense to the offense.

[ 11. November 2005, 07:51 PM:   snopes ]

--------------------
On the crusade to eliminate Moral Asshattery wherever it exists
Member: AAMAH

Posts: 2940 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KentuckyGhostHunter
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KentuckyGhostHunter   E-mail KentuckyGhostHunter   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
and it's about time he hit the offense to.

While I believe that it's time to start winding down the war and that some things are going a bit to far, continually dwelling on why we went there in the first place (which the collective "we" pretty much agreed on) is both unneeded and useless.

We should be spending all this time focusing on what to do now and in the immediate/near future.

--------------------
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for freedom of thought, which they avoid."
--Kierkegaard

Posts: 303 | From: Ashland, KY | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BlueStar
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlueStar     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
He's sounding increasingly desperate to me.
Posts: 1710 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archangel
Spider Cider


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Archangel     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The way to end the speculation and rumour is to resolve it.

All Bush needs to silence his critics is a speech, where he states.

quote:
"Yes, I lied outright on why the US began this aggression. And a whole lot of it. Boy, did my liberal critics have it bang to rights ... etc."

"But you know, when the American people elected this party, they knew we don't stand for truth. And the truth is hurting our troops, so ease up willya? Look at that nice Mr Murdoch and his FoxNews, you know what I mean?"


Posts: 1749 | From: -> Canberra <-/ Hong Kong / London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Keith Olbermann just said on "Countdown" that the administration emailed the text of the speech to news people with the subject line "In case you missed it".

Ted Kennedy expressed my feelings about the speech:
quote:
Its deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.


--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KentuckyGhostHunter:
While I believe that it's time to start winding down the war and that some things are going a bit to far, continually dwelling on why we went there in the first place (which the collective "we" pretty much agreed on) is both unneeded and useless.

So the statute of limitations on that kind of crime is 2 years?

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
What new things did he say in this speech that he hasn't said before? I'm pretty sure the "you're sending the enemy mixed signals" thing is at least a year stale. Anybody know where to find the full text of the speech?

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Simply Madeline
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Simply Madeline     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Anybody know where to find the full text of the speech?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html
Posts: 763 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, of course. Thanks!

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Elwood
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elwood   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:


Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions in Iraq -- claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.) The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

Well he's right about one thing, Iraq is no longer an excuse. . .for America. Just because terrorism existed before and will continue to exist after the Iraqi conflict says little about whether or not Iraq was a good idea or even an ethical one in the first place.

quote:
Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses
Besides, they're like communists! It's okay to torture communists. Their self-appointed vanguard differs from Christian Fundamentalism in so many ways. First, it's Christian and not Muslim. Second. . . . .

quote:
Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation
George, we've been over the WMD thing before. You can't possibly being playing that card again.

quote:
Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes.
Except for ones that might be helping us at a given time.

quote:
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)
This one just pisses me off. I can't believe he and his speech writers even have the gull to pull the "if you criticize the war, you hurt the troops" shit again. The best way to support the troops is to keep them out of harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the U.S., not just its perceived interests.

--------------------
"If I didn't see it and didn't know it was a real news report, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, how nutty can you get?"-Pat Robertson Oct 26, 2006.

Posts: 2936 | From: Mean Streets of West Virginia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:

Ted Kennedy expressed my feelings about the speech:
quote:
Its deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Anybody else catch the inherent inconsistency in that sentence?

"We're seeking the truth" about "clear manipulation."

So he's trying to find the "intelligence" to support a conclusion he's already arrived at.

'Course, the Senate Intelligence Committee has already found that the charges that the admin. pressured analysts to change thier opinions was false, so that's a (largely ignored) start.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
So he's trying to find the "intelligence" to support a conclusion he's already arrived at.

Now, who does that remind you of?

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:

Ted Kennedy expressed my feelings about the speech:
quote:
Its deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Anybody else catch the inherent inconsistency in that sentence?

Sure, if you want to play word games. The idea is hard to express without saying something the word police can attack. But the sentiment reflects how I feel. Mostly I was appalled at using Veterans Day to make a political speech.

quote:
"We're seeking the truth" about "clear manipulation."

I wouldn't have used "clear", I would have waffled.

quote:
'Course, the Senate Intelligence Committee has already found that the charges that the admin. pressured analysts to change thier opinions was false, so that's a (largely ignored) start.

That was nothing but a CYA investigation. Didn't expect any other finding.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not a completely new speech: http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002012.html

Also note this: Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

quote:
Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.

Bush himself said that "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable," and that military action would be a "last resort."

Meanwhile, in 2002: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It's kind of sad when a liar is forced to the last resort: brusque outright denial. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "There was no arms-for-hostages arrangement." It's really the kiss of death.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Psihala
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 607 posted      Profile for Psihala   E-mail Psihala   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
He had to attack his critics! They were stockpiling WMD against his policies and besides, they threatened his father...

~Psihala
(*Got it... [fish] )

--------------------
StealthPost™

Posts: 3020 | From: Colorado | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
aranea russus
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for aranea russus     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
He used veterans day because everyone in the audience is a veteran, and they will applaud where it says (APPLAUD) on Bush's crib notes.

These people clappy. Why not you?

Posts: 625 | From: Texas | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Joe Bentley   Author's Homepage   E-mail Joe Bentley   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Bush Takes Fresh Shot at Iraq War Critics

quote:
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE - President Bush, heading to Asia with hopes of improving his image on the world stage, hurled a parting shot at Iraq war critics on Monday, accusing some Democrats of "sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy."

"That is irresponsible," Bush said in prepared remarks he planned to deliver to U.S. forces during a refueling stop in Alaska. Excerpts from the remarks were released by the White House as Bush flew to Elemendorf Air Force Base on the initial leg of an eight-day journey to Japan,
South Korea, China and Mongolia.

"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said in his prepared remarks.



--------------------
"Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen

Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bentley:
"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said in his prepared remarks.



Yes, how dare they point out the truth.

Do Bush and the R's and their fellow travelers still deny that Bush outright lied and mislead about the reasons for going to war? Are they truly that blinded?

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Grumpy
Deck the Malls


Icon 37 posted      Profile for Grumpy         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The story today shows that Bush isn't just attacking his critics, he's defining who his critics are allowed to be:

quote:
Bush noted that some elected Democrats in Congress "have opposed this war all along.
"I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand," he said. "Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy."

In other words, if you voted for the "use of force" resolution (ahem Kerry, Edwards, Clinton), shut your pie-hole.

Sadly, this illustrates Bush's worst intellectual failing: putting cosistency above accuracy. See, Mr. President, it's no fault to change your position in light of new facts.

There's also a Bushism in there: we're sending "mixed signals to our troops and the enemy." Which is somehow detrimental to the troops, but encouraging to enemy. Shouldn't both groups be equally confused??

EDITED TO ADD: To illustrate his claims of Democratic inconsistency, Bush is now trotting out some old quotations, many of which were probably seen in the "Who's lying in Iraq WMD" thread.

quote:
"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.
This omits a relevant detail: the quote is from September 2002, when the president's "fashion" was radically different. In fact, Reid's next sentence was, "He's now trying to get the international community to join." In case anyone didn't notice, that's not how it all ultimately worked out.

quote:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
This depends on the claim that Congress saw the same intelligence as the White House. It falls apart if Rockefeller was not privy to dissenting views which the White House suppressed (which would have shown the evidence on nukes to be very much mistaken).

quote:
_"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." — Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Again, context is your friend. The quote comes from December 2001, as the first phase of the war in Afghanistan was winding down. Wolf Blitzer cited a quote from Joe Lieberman, who said Saddam was next. Arizona's John Kyl agreed, and Levin echoed his answer -- and then immediately added:

quote:
But that does not mean he is the next target.

And the commitment to do that, it seems to me, could be disruptive of our alliance that still has work to do in Afghanistan. And a lot will depend on what the facts are in various places as to what terrorist groups are doing, and as to whether or not we have facts as to whether or not the Iraqis have been involved in the terrorist attack of September 11, or whether or not Saddam is getting a weapon of mass destruction and is close to it. So facts will determine what our next targets are.

Uh-uh, Senator Levin! You said Saddam is part of the War on Terror, and no amount of "facts" can change that!!

EDITED TO FURTHER ADD links to CNN transcripts, and more Reid context.

Posts: 389 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Billion
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Billion   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Billion   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Kerry replies.

quote:
The bottom line is that the President and his Administration did mislead America into war. In fact, the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history. The facts are incontrovertible. The act of misleading was pretending to Americans that they hadn’t made a decision to go to war, and would seriously pursue inspections when the evidence strongly suggests that they had already decided to take out Saddam Hussein, were anxious to do it for ideological reasons, and hoped that inspections, which Vice President Cheney had opposed and tried to prevent, would not get in their way.

The President misled America about his intentions and the manner in which he would make his decision. We now know his speech in Cincinnati right before the authorization vote was carefully orchestrated window dressing where again he misled America by promising that “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully.” He did none of these things.
The act of misleading was just going through the motions of inspections while it appears he really couldn’t wait to just kick Saddam Hussein out of power.
...

The very worst that Members of Congress can be accused of is trusting the intelligence we were selectively given by this Administration, and taking the President at his word. But unlike this Administration, there is absolutely no suggestion that we intentionally went beyond what we were told were the facts. That is the greatest offense by the Administration. Just look at their most compelling justification for war: Saddam’s nuclear program and his connections with Al Qaeda.

The facts speak for themselves. The White House has admitted that the President told Congress and the American public in the State of the Union Address that Saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for nuclear weapons despite the fact that the CIA specifically told the Administration three times, in writing and verbally, not to use this intelligence. Obviously, Democrats didn’t get that memo. In fact, similar statements were removed from a prior speech by the President, and Colin Powell refused to use it in his presentation to the UN. This is not relying on faulty intelligence, as Democrats did; it is knowingly, and admittedly, misleading the American public on a key justification for going to war.

Zing.

--------------------
"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney.

Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
evilbeard
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for evilbeard   E-mail evilbeard   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument
quote:
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

quote:
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
quote:
But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."
quote:
But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

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.

Even within the Bush administration, not everybody consistently viewed Iraq as what Hadley called "an enormous threat." In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein's Iraq: "Frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."



--------------------
rex linum occisor et erronis

But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey."

Posts: 1022 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
"Neither assertion is wholly accurate."

Isn't there a word for when someone says something he knows isn't wholly accurate?

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I know what it immediately reminded me of:

"... opposition to the war in this country is the greatest single weapon working against the U.S."

I thought I was being satirical, but apparently not:

quote:
From Bush's speech:
Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq -- the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.


Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
aranea russus
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for aranea russus     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So the comparison to the Vietnam war is reasonable, and something to be feared,

OR

is it bunk (as has been said before) and he's just highlighting that the terrorists are fools.

I'm confused. Does that mean I'm a terrorist? I'd go and lie down but there's not enough room in my cell.

Posts: 625 | From: Texas | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a good thing Bush is a uniter, and not a divider.

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
He doesn't seem to be questioning Zawahiri's Vietnam comparison - in fact, he's drawing attention to it - so I assume he means that "America is not going to make the mistake of running away, as we did in Vietnam, because that's what the terrorists want us to do".

Like Pogue said...

It does seem very tasteless to make this sort of speech at a Remembrance ceremony.

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Stan
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stan   E-mail Stan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
President Bush did not say anything regarding Iraq's WMD program that various members of the Clinton administration (to include Buba himself), Democratic members of congress (who voted for the war)and other members of the UN (which had 17 standing resolutions against Iraq)stated LONG prior to President Bush being elected. Furthermore, The United States didn't need President Bush, Congress, the UN or anybody else for that matter to invade Iraq as Saddam was in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War.

As a member of the Armed Forces I can tell you that if you believe the "strategy" of "if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone" will work, you are sorely mistaken (see Sep 11th 2001).

We can fight them there, or we can fight them here.

BTW...what exactly was that stuff Saddam used on the Kurds? WMD? Nah...must have been another Jonestown thing.

--------------------
I did what with who???

Posts: 40 | From: Killeen, TX | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Stan said:
... stated LONG prior to President Bush being elected.

True perhaps, but he's still ignoring the threat from Hitler. Hasn't he seen all the warning signs? People have been going on about them since 1933 at least!

(Does this count as Godwinization? I hope not; I wasn't comparing anybody to a Nazi - just using the first historical threat I thought of.)

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Bug Muldoon
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bug Muldoon   E-mail Bug Muldoon   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Look, it's a model IV Republidrone. We haven't seen those lately.

EDIT : where are my manners ? Welcome to the board.

--------------------
All along the untrodden paths of the future, I can see the footprints of an unseen hand.

Posts: 6912 | From: Flanders | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Elwood
Little Sales Drummer Boy


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elwood   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
We can fight them there, or we can fight them here
Bullshit! They have to get into the country before they can inflict domestic damage. They do not have long-range missiles and have to resort to improvised explosives, grenades or suicide attacks to cause harm. We're been attacked by foreign terrorists how many times on U.S. soil? By how many terrorists?

We're dealing with a problem akin to organized crime here, not something worthy of full-scale war. Like the fights with organized crime in the past, this can be fought with detective work, targeting of finances and spot raids. You cannot wage war against a tactic.

--------------------
"If I didn't see it and didn't know it was a real news report, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, how nutty can you get?"-Pat Robertson Oct 26, 2006.

Posts: 2936 | From: Mean Streets of West Virginia | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
As a member of the Armed Forces I can tell you that if you believe the "strategy" of "if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone" will work, you are sorely mistaken (see Sep 11th 2001).

We can fight them there, or we can fight them here.

And, in fact, most of us favored the invasion of Afghanistan to capture Osama Bin Laden, who attacked us on Sep 11th 2001.

This has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was *not* a threat to us, and the Administration knew it. (A lot of us out here in the private sector were also aware of that fact.)

Bush lied to get us into a war.

Meanwhile, where is OBL?

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Stan
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stan   E-mail Stan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
WWII and Hitler is an interesting comparison in terms of the case for pre-emptive war. If the world had listened to Sir Winston Churchill instead of Lord Chamberlin regarding the threat of Adolf Hitler, WWII likely would not have happened.

model IV Republidrone? I guess that doesn't make me any different than Harry Ried, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc, in terms of things said over the years regarding this topic.

Treating this like organized crime is what got us in this position in the first palce! When was the last time organized crime murdered over 3,000 Americans in one day? No long range missles? You're right..today. Why don't we leave them alone long enough to find out how long it takes them to get some? Maybe they can buy some from the Soprano's!

--------------------
I did what with who???

Posts: 40 | From: Killeen, TX | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
WWII and Hitler is an interesting comparison in terms of the case for pre-emptive war. If the world had listened to Sir Winston Churchill instead of Lord Chamberlin regarding the threat of Adolf Hitler, WWII likely would not have happened.

Do go on, please.

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Oualawouzou
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oualawouzou     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stan:
WWII and Hitler is an interesting comparison in terms of the case for pre-emptive war. If the world had listened to Sir Winston Churchill instead of Lord Chamberlin regarding the threat of Adolf Hitler, WWII likely would not have happened.

But nobody would have known such a thing as WWII would have been averted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way to avert WWI would have been to avoid getting involved in what should have been a dispute between two (or a handful) of countries, not a full-blown continental war.

That's the problem with using hindsight on past events to justify present actions. There is absolutely no way to know just what, if any, bad thing was averted and what current bad things would not have happened had nothing be done.

--------------------
Le champignon arrive.

Posts: 4372 | From: Quebec | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2