Bush attacks critics on Veteran's Day

[Clarence]

Here ya go

[rmnunez]

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said. "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Bush said. He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program. Bush also said critics know the UN passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. "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," he said. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said. "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," the president said. "Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. 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." Bush said the US and its allies are determined to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of extremists and prevent them from gaining control of any country.

Does anyone think it would be preferable that Bush favour a policy facilitating extremists acquisition of WMDs?

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Does anyone think it would be preferable that Bush favour a policy facilitating extremists acquisition of WMDs?

It worked fine for the US in the 1980s.

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnunez Does anyone think it would be preferable that Bush favour a policy facilitating extremists acquisition of WMDs?

No, and that's the problem. What do you think he's been doing in Iraq other than diverting massive resources to a red herring while nutjobs from Pavlograd to Pyongyang are busy taking advantage of the situation and teasing out the means to create havoc?

[Jack]

Is this what he was doing when he should have laying a wreath at the Unknown Soldier's Tomb?

[RickSp]

The Bush administration's carefully orchestrated campaign of lying us into war is just beginning to be exposed. What else can Bush do but deny everything and blame everything on those who demand the truth be told? Only about 40% of the public consider him "truthful", so I doubt his blathering will make much difference.

And thank you rmnunez for asking the ridiculous rhetorical question. I know it wasn't meant to funny but nevertheless....

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Isherwood Is this what he was doing when he should have laying a wreath at the Unknown Soldier's Tomb?

Cheney did that so Bush would be free to grandstand at a photo op instead of doing something (that most other presidents have done.)

Even when it comes to a simple symbolic act this louse is a pathetic disgrace.

[bishop]

it shows political weakness and disrespect to the veterans to use this day as a chance to campaign for his war.. the son of a bitch should've simply paid homage to the troops and all of our veterans and left it at that..

instead, the chicken hawk puts on a spectacle.. and to this day, have we heard any coherent exit strategy? nope.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Does anyone think it would be preferable that Bush favour a policy facilitating extremists acquisition of WMDs?

Yeah, that's it. We either have to invade other countries or we have to "favour a policy facilitating extremists acquisition of WMDs". You really can't think of any other possible options that might be of use?

[RickSp]

A thought on Veteran's Day - (not original to me, based in part on comments by Laurence Vance.) We have too many veterans because we have had too many wars. It is tragic that a holiday originally meant to celebrate the end of the War to End All Wars, has now morphed into a celebration of militarism. Yes, the veterans deserve our thanks for their service but if we really wished to honor them we would act to end wars rather than to glorify fighting them.

[rmnunez]

We either have to invade other countries or we have to "favour a policy facilitating extremists acquisition of WMDs". You really can't think of any other possible options that might be of use?

I wonder what other possible options are really available. Leaving terrorists alone to do their own thing isn't a good option. Their most common and frequently demanded goal is the erradication of Israel and I don't see this as a good option either. I also think any concession to fanatical fundamentalist terrorists would induce others to resort to terrorism for similar concessions.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop it shows political weakness and disrespect to the veterans to use this day as a chance to campaign for his war.. the son of a bitch should've simply paid homage to the troops and all of our veterans and left it at that..

This is my problem with him. He IS the president, after all, and he can call press conferences, make speeches, have his little photo ops anywhere he wants and any number of other things to call attention to himself. But this creep uses a holiday HE of all people should consider important for a cheap publicity stunt.

instead, the chicken hawk puts on a spectacle.. and to this day, have we heard any coherent exit strategy? nope.

I am so outraged by this miserable little man's bullshit the only exit strategy I'm hoping to see is HIS exit from the White House as he moves to a prison cell.

I apologize for the anger but this situation makes my blood boil.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez I wonder what other possible options are really available. Leaving terrorists alone to do their own thing isn't a good option. Their most common and frequently demanded goal is the erradication of Israel and I don't see this as a good option either. I also think any concession to fanatical fundamentalist terrorists would induce others to resort to terrorism for similar concessions.

Ah yes, start the discussion on the subject of "extremist acquisition of WMD's", then quickly attempt to obfuscate the issue by dragging Israel into it.

We had inspectors in Iraq right up until Bush's invasion, please explain exactly how it's a "concession" to allow them to continue their work. I know the usual claim is that saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors, yet I haven't seen any Bushbot ever offer as evidence of that a single reference to a site the inspectors were denied access to. So what "concession to fanatical fundamentalist terrorists" are you referring to?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez I wonder what other possible options are really available. Leaving terrorists alone to do their own thing isn't a good option. Their most common and frequently demanded goal is the erradication of Israel and I don't see this as a good option either. I also think any concession to fanatical fundamentalist terrorists would induce others to resort to terrorism for similar concessions.

So are you saying if we had the foresight to NOT invade Iraq under weak or nonexistent provocation it would somehow concede ANYTHING to the "terrorists"? Are you saying Bush's policy in Iraq is anything OTHER than a collosal screwup?

In any event, this was about Bush abandoning tradition to play cheerleader for himself, which I see as a slap in the face to the soldiers the bastard wants us to think he reveres.

[rmnunez]

Is opposition to intervention prevalent among US veterans? To what extent is this opposition simply an aversion for military conflict based on some personal experience?

[Compugasm]

nevermind.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: rmnunez Is opposition to intervention prevalent among US veterans? To what extent is this opposition simply an aversion for military conflict based on some personal experience?

Hey: I hate war. I've never been. I've never hurt anyone. I've never even watched anyone die (and I'm 31, so don't think I'm some sheltered child). And I hate war, even without any personal experience. Fit me into your syllogism.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez Is opposition to intervention prevalent among US veterans?

Irrelevant. Soldiers have no special insight as to how a president's mind works or what motivates him to go to war.

To what extent is this opposition simply an aversion for military conflict based on some personal experience?

Very little I would think. I can only speak with any certainty about my own feelings, and I felt this was wrong from the start. The reasons Bush gave didn't seem right and there seemed no truly logical reason to invade Iraq. Then more reasons for war when ordinarily ONE reason is sufficient and then the lies and cover ups. There is too much against and too ,little for this war to make it possible for me to buy into it.

My reasons for opposing this war have no basis in personal experience and there is NO way I will ever be drafted. I wouldn't be accepted if I volunteered. I also have no rosy visions of a peaceful world and I am quite aware that my young fellow Americans WILL go to war and WILL die. I know some will be forced to live as horribly injured people and many friends and families will suffer great loss.
So, in my mind the only people who can truly say they support the troops are those who are for committing them for a justifiable war and that does NOT mean just because some sleazy, lying politician says it's a good idea.
In effect, by opposing a war such as this debacle we are just keeping the soldiers in reserve so they will probably die LATER, only for a real reason.

Cold hearted, yes. But that is the reality of it.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: RickSp A thought on Veteran's Day - (not original to me, based in part on comments by Laurence Vance.) We have too many veterans because we have had too many wars. It is tragic that a holiday originally meant to celebrate the end of the War to End All Wars, has now morphed into a celebration of militarism. Yes, the veterans deserve our thanks for their service but if we really wished to honor them we would act to end wars rather than to glorify fighting them.

Hear, hear. And let me double that up: HEAR HEAR!

[rmnunez]

So are you saying by having the foresight to NOT invade Iraq under weak or nonexistent provocation is somehow conceding ANYTHING to the "terrorists"?

No, I noted intervention in Iraq was an expansion of the effort against terrorism. I don't think the intent behind intervention in Iraq was initially aimed at terrorism erradication. I suspect they saw it could be a great way to do some terrorism interdiction, but may not have grasped the 'draw' military occupation would have on international terrorism.

Are you saying Bush's policy in Iraq is anything OTHER than a collosal screwup?

Not a screwup, but pretty close. Intervention in Iraq was an expansion on a soundly premised global effort against international terrorism. International terrorism has been promoted as a consequence of intervention, but this has been concentrated there and directed at the military.

There is an actual problem with international terrorism. The US and its interests are threatened and harmed by international terrorism, which is a threat to international peace and security. Intervention in Afghanistan was an effective first step at the erradication of terrorism. Terrorists dispersed and reacted, but overall it was a successful action.

Then Bush started saber-rattling and Saddam was called on account. A slew of intelligent and soundly premised arguments existed to bully Saddam. All these justifications seem compelling to me, but the most persuasive to Bush was the WMD threat and this was his 'pitch'. The terrorist ties claim wasn't well substantiated and withdrawn, the WMD claim challenged and inspections frustrated. The humanitarian justification wasn't seen as persuasive (though it seems intelligence on the magnitude of this was weak too).

Intervention in Iraq has focused some international terrorism there and this may be an advantage in a strategic sense.

Would some different approach be better? How would a failure to intervene in Iraq affect the way things could be? Would Blix et al. have offered conclusive evidence satisfactory to even Bush by now or would he take as long as Saddam had steadfastedly frustrated the Security Council's prior efforts? I think its a genuine tossup, I'm sure Saddam could have continued obfuscating, the US gathering faulty intelligence and the EUros shipping expensive machinery for a few more years. I suppose eventually Saddam's WMD pursuits could produce something, perhaps by now absent intervention.

What would things be like today if the US military had never intervened in Iraq and were exclusively engaged in Afghanistan or at home? Does what you think things would be like take into account we would be three or four years into Bush's assertion there were WMDs in Iraq and probably no closer to learning the truth than at the outset?

I think intervention against Saddam was necessary at least in part because Bush couldn't be challenged in his demands for strict compliance from Saddam. Continued uncertainty over the WMDs by now would be seen as a clear weakness, particulary by other Muslims involved in international terrorism. I also think it was only a matter of time before those WMDs fell into terrorist hands.