Bush, and Iraq

[raVeneyes]

I guess they didn't feel they had "legitimacy" before 9/11 too?

And I guess they're just hanging out. The lack of an attack on American soil has nothing to do with the fact Al-Queda is under assault, all their resouces are being siezed, and what is available is being sent to Iraq instead. No, they're just hanging out waiting... waiting.... for about 5 or 6 years, quietly. Sure. That makes sense.

You may be right. It is interesting that there have not been any successful terrorist attacks since 9-11, but it's not that there haven't been attempts. There have been several foiled plots even in the past recent months.

 

[MonsterMark]

You may be right. It is interesting that there have not been any successful terrorist attacks since 9-11, but it's not that there haven't been attempts. There have been several foiled plots even in the past recent months.

So I guess you are giving credit to Bush for his stance on the War on Terror since we have not been attacked on our soil since? How many times were United States assets attacked during the Clinton administration worldwide? We know all about Iraq and Afganistan but where else has the US been attacked. You know, embassy bombings, etc, etc.

 

[Vitas]

This is the best short answer that I have seen anywhere on this subject.


TonyC
Dedicated Enthusiast


Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 695
Location: Fort Hood, TX
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know I'm going to get hit with a Scud for this comment, but I must insert a comment on that topic. First, let me stress that I am NOT directing this at anyone here; politics aside, we still are neighbors on this forum, and I will not compromise that.

That said, here goes: The biggest myth about why we went back to Iraq is not so much the existence of WMD, as it is the belief that WMD was the only reason we went back. It was one of the biggest issues, and one that (legitimately at the time) we had to use to press the need to go back and keep our promise to the Iraqis; but it is not the only issue. The way this has been played over and over and over has tried to give the impression that that was the only reason to go, and since we didn't find them, we are criminals for being there.

Saddam violated every UN resolution he agreed to in writing after Gulf War I, starting with trying to assassinate President Bush (arranging the plot makes him just as guilty as if he pulled the trigger himself). Leftists try twisting that into making President Bush a petty person out for a vendetta. Excuse me, but who said that the assassination (or even an attempt) of a U.S. President by a known hostile power is not an act of war? Saddam also misled UN weapon inspectors, then kicked them out, put anti-aircraft weaponry in the no-fly zones that shot at our patrol planes that were legitimately flying UN-approved patrols, kept strike missiles that were outlawed by the UN, made illegal deals with France (and possibly Germany and others, but definitely France) through the UN to build more palaces while his subjects were still living lower-than-ghetto. Any one of those is enough justification. All of them together are enough justification, and I'm proud to have been part of it.

We are guilty of one bad thing with Iraq: We promised them in 1991 we'd help them if they stood up to Saddam. They kept their side of the deal and died for it; it took us twelve years to keep our side. I was there, and I apologized to several Iraqis for that act of laziness on our part. The good thing is that the Iraqis saw that we are, at least, keeping our side of the deal, however late. In that part of the world, honor is highly regarded.

On the WMD issue, no one can convince me he didn't have them. I know what I'd do if I were in his shoes, and if I could think of it, he could. He knew for months we were coming, and it's a big-a$$ desert. We may never find the stuff in that sand. Doesn't mean it's not there.

As for Iran, maybe we'll have to go in, maybe not (pray for not). Maybe the fact we have them surrounded will deter them from trying anything. I know the Iranians want a change, they just don't know how to enact it. North Korea? Japan would probably cremate them before we could move into position.

---Tony

http://www.thelincolnforum.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=66062&highlight=#66062

 

[MonsterMark]

Bush, in a speech today (11/11), hits the ball out of the ballpark...

BUSH: Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war.

These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions, citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security."

That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

 

[fossten]

“The Early Show” Cherry-Picks McCain’s “Face The Nation” Interview
Posted by Noel Sheppard on November 14, 2005 - 11:51.
CBS’s Thalia Assuras did a piece on “The Early Show” this morning (video link to follow) about President Bush’s falling poll numbers. In it, she took a snippet out of an interview that Bob Schieffer did with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) yesterday on “Face The Nation” to indicate that the senator was “concerned” about these polls and what they are currently suggesting. However, the sentences after this fragment that were not included in Assuras’s report qualified McCain’s concerns.

For example, Assuras stated, “The latest poll shows his support remains at its lowest ever, and that’s causing concern in his own party.” Then came McCain’s quote: “As a loyal Republican and a person who’s loyal to this president I am of course concerned. These numbers are not good.”

However, what CBS chose not to show the viewer were McCain’s next sentences (from caption dump):

“I take some comfort in the knowledge that the last two administrations in their second term, both Clinton and Reagan, had serious problems. They were different problems but they were serious problems. Both were able to emerge.”

Maybe most important, Assuras claimed in her piece that Bush’s declining poll numbers have a lot to do with the country’s negative perception of the Iraq war. Since Assuras was going to quote statements made by McCain on “Face The Nation” yesterday, why didn’t she include the beginning of that interview when the senator said that he didn’t believe President Bush lied about intelligence concerning Iraq WMD? In fact, in that interview, McCain unequivocally stated, “I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people.”
What follows is a full transcript of Assuras’s report with a video link, as well as a transcript and video link of the section of the McCain interview dealing with Iraq.

Assuras: Good morning Rene. Well, more bad news as you as say as Mr.. Bush leaves. The latest poll shows his support remains at its lowest ever, and that’s causing concern in his own party.

McCain: As a loyal republican and a person who’s loyal to this president I am of course concerned. These numbers are not good.

Assuras: The reason for the concern is new numbers showing the president’s job approval rating is the lowest ever -- 36% according to "Newsweek" magazine. That’s consistent with other recent polls. AP showed it at 37%, while a CBS poll showed his rating down to 35%. A consistently key concern -- the war in Iraq. The latest poll shows two-thirds of Americans think Mr. Bush is mishandling the war. Republicans deny a connection between the war in Iraq and the domestic agenda.

RNC Chairman Mehlman: Ultimately, Iraq should not be about domestic politics. Iraq’s about national security. On September 11th we learned we need to think first and foremost about protecting America.

Assuras: The recent indictment of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff I. Scooter Libby over the CIA leak has not helped, either. And with a possible indictment hanging over Karl Rove the president's closest adviser, some Republicans wonder if the president should think about a replacement. McCain even suggested someone, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson.

McCain: I love Fred Thompson. I think he’s a great guy.

Assuras: Well, Mr. Bush will be out of Washington for eight days perhaps hoping his trip abroad will distract from these poor numbers. Rene?


Bob Schieffer: Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

McCain: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silberman commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them, I said, were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw it? Every one of them said “no.” Now, was there a colossal intelligence failure? Of course there was. Is there still a lot of things that need to be done to improve that? Are we winning the war on terror? I think it depends on your parameters. But to assert that the president intentionally lied to the American people is just wrong. And, could I finally say, every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, including the French, including the Israeli, all had reached the same conclusion and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So, I think open, honest disagreement, more discussion, more debate, the more facts that come out, the better off we are. But I would not accept the premise the president lied.