Bush's Speech

“And I have a sick feeling that's not the end of the money trail either...”

“That photo of Bush is classic "deer in the headlights" stuff.”

“"by far, most huge donations(ie;from rich people) go to dems.

stratdewd
11:24:06 PM"

Another phractrured phact from the Strat man. Care to back that up?

(I'm also interested in the claim that: the VAST majority of donations to repubs is from ordinary citizens and in small amounts." (I am aware that the Republicans get more money in small donations that Dems, and a higher portion of their donations from Dems - I'm curious about the data on who is making the donations.)”

“He's crankin' open the money tap!”

“Each family member of the Haliburton "family" can contribute to the limit.”

“I basically agree with Nigal on Clinton's BJ - its the lying that galls me.

Although I gotta add that he deserves some criticism for the fact that he chose getting head from an intern (the least powerful person in his work place, while he was the most powerful) at the risk of the vast responsibilites he had taken on (especially knowing that people were gunning for him and looking for sexual misbehavior on his part).

Whether his lying about sex was worse than Reagan's lies about Iran-Contra, or Bush's deceit about wmd and Iraqi links to terror depends on where you stand.”

“"Now......does Bush's lying about WAR and the combat death's your countries young people bug you as much, or isn't that as important."

Jo, you seem like a very intelligent and stable person, so I’ll ask you to please explain how Bush lied about the war. I hear this claim being thrown around from the left constantly but have never met a lefty that I cared to listen to long enough to have them explain it to me. As soon as the rhetoric and catch prases of the week start up my eyes glaze over and I’m somewhere else. Phaedy and Tom are about the only libs I don’t have on ignore (Tom’s too damn funny and Phaedy is a bit more rational than the rest). I’d like to hear from Phaed too if he’s willing. If the claim that he lied is to be made can you also substantiate it with a credible link? I really am interested in knowing.

As for comparing the deaths of our troops to a BJ, well, that like comparing apples and oranges. Of course the deaths of our troops bother me more than perjury but at the same time I don’t lay them at Bush’s feet unilaterally.”

“First of all Nigal, this left right thing is ridiculous. Lefties?! My "lefty" relatives have spilled their blood for this country. I find that cute little phrase quite offensive, just like when Alaska calls all Republicans terrrorists. It's utter nonsense.

I have heard plenty of people of all directions express dismay, disgust, etc., with the thin and flimsy rationale given by Bush for going to war. Iraq had no connection to 9-11 or AL Qadea. Where are the WMDs? Especially parents of GIs. This war/invasion is all about getting our minds off of the economy. Saddam was horrible but not an imminent threat. It is now a hotbed of terrorism and a mecca for jihadist. Of course we will kick their ass, but is it worth our son's and daughter's blood?

Nigal, do you have any sons of draftable age?

And still people talk about lying about BJs. Now that's flimsy.

$87 BILLION. Hello?!”

“"First of all Nigal, this left right thing is ridiculous.”

While I do take most things on a face value basis I fully admit to being a bit of a “black and white” type when it comes to politics.

“Lefties?! My "lefty" relatives have spilled their blood for this country.”

Yeah, no shlt. Who said they didn’t? Liberals are always shown in a light as being un-American and they hate america. That’s BS and I know it. Just like how conservatives are always viewed as fat, lazy, trust fund babies. BS.


“I find that cute little phrase quite offensive, just like when Alaska calls all Republicans terrrorists. It's utter nonsense.”

Liberals OK with you then?

“I have heard plenty of people of all directions express dismay, disgust, etc., with the thin and flimsy rationale given by Bush for going to war. Iraq had no connection to 9-11 or AL Qadea. Where are the WMDs? Especially parents of GIs. This war/invasion is all about getting our minds off of the economy. Saddam was horrible but not an imminent threat. It is now a hotbed of terrorism and a mecca for jihadist. Of course we will kick their ass, but is it worth our son's and daughter's blood?”

See, this is when my eyes glaze over because I’m hearing the same thing I’ve heard over and over and over with no substantiation.

“Nigal, do you have any sons of draftable age?”


No I have no children and won’t but to attempt to make my view irrelevant for this fact is useless. I have family in the military and if I did have children I would encourage them to seek service in our military…but then again, not having kids, my voice doesn’t count, right?

“And still people talk about lying about BJs. Now that's flimsy.”

No, I’m talking about breaking the law. Has Bush broken the law? The BJ thing is done and over with. I’m not the one who brought it up.

“$87 BILLION. Hello?!"

Building a democracy. Hello?!”

“I'm a bit of a "doubting Thomas".

I'll believe it when I see it.

The Bush administration's credibility......ain't”

“Nigal....

Liberals? No thanks, I prefer Americans. Ideas are liberal or conservative.

Of course your voice counts, but so do your ears. Listen to those people and thank them that they are paying the price for you.

You'll never get substantiation. I guess the problem is with your eyesight then, because it's right there in front of you and you just won't see it. Even Nixon's staunchest supporters finally admitted the truth.

Like Tom asked...." Building a Democracy"? Those people have never known democracy and probably never will. Building a democracy there will have about as much success as trying to build an authoritarian state here. Hmmm? What a minute!”

“See, this is when my eyes glaze over because I’m hearing the same thing I’ve heard over and over and over with no substantiation.

Nigel, surely you must appreciate the fact that the NBC issue was hyperbolized. I think that's what's making people angry. Is a hyperbole a lie? That's a question for ethicists.”

“Deliberately misleading the American people is lying.”

“Tom: Maybe, but hyperbole is also propaganda. I don't know of a president who hasn't made use of propaganda. It's always been up to "us" to decide what the real truth is.”

“Truth du jour?”

“"I'm a bit of a "doubting Thomas".

Handle yourself. Place your fingers in your butt and know it is true.”

“"You'll never get substantiation. I guess the problem is with your eyesight then, because it's right there in front of you and you just won't see it."

No, I'm getting a lot of pat claims and no proof. I have seen no proof yet. Care to share?”

“Ask stratdewd about "www.iwannahavedubyasbaby.com"”

“"Nigel, surely you must appreciate the fact that the NBC issue was hyperbolized."

Forgive my ignorance but what is the NBC issue about?”

“Sorry, should have been NBC WMD. (nuclear, biological, chemical)”

“Who's Pat? What did he/she claim?”

“Ya guys heard any "Paddy and Mike" jokes lately?”

“Funny thing about how we all know two wrong don't make a right, yet all to often the answer to Clinton's lies about sex is: "Well dubya lied about the wmd." and on the other side, the answer to Bush's deceptions and fudging (posibly lying) about wmd is, "well Clinton lied about Monica"). It's a weird new brand of moral relativism... if we say their guy was worse, our guy is excused.”

“They backtrack to Clinton because they cannot defend Bush.”

“Johnson: Come, let us reason together (while twisting the arm of his subject).

Nixon: I am not a crook.

Carter: I lust after your women.

Reagan: (cupping hand to ear) What did you say Sam?

Bush I: Read my lips; no new taxes.

Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman.

Bush II: The war is over.”

“the 2 objectives stated for starting war in Afghan and Iraq have not been achieved.Get Osama and find WMD.
Neither get any mention from the white House yet this war continues with changing objectives by the week.At a cost of close to 300 us soldiers and many thousands injured is it worth it?At a cost of a billion a week shouldnt we have stated objectives that are met in a timely manner so we can have some accountability and get this thing going in some sort of proper direction?
What is truly hypocritical is that GW is now ASKING the UN for help after he ignored their warning him not to enter war.Incredible chutzpa.”

“That's what we get for havin' a monkey runnin' the zoo.”

“"Bush II: The war is over."

He never said this. Keep the facts straight. He said the major fighting was over, not the war.”

“Looked to me like the major fighting began post-speech, Nig”

“No, the random pot shots and sniping did. The number of casualties vs. timespan shows that casualties have been relatively light militarily speaking. Again I say RELATIVELY.”

“More casualties after than before, so I don't understand the point you make...”

“Look at the time span differences between the heavy fighting and the span of time after Bush said the major fighting was over. The latter is much, much longer.”

“I think what I am alluding to was the rashness of the decision to go in and invade while discarding diplomacy and spitting arrogance in the face of the U.N. (whom Bush is now singing a different tune on and asking them for help). I feel it was done without any foresight towards the afteremath of the invasion. That was easy for a superpower. Invading a country with billions of dollars worth of technology wasn't the hard part. Bringing all this idealism about democracy in that country and the rosy picture painted of how easy this will be was the part that seemed so shortsighted on the part of this administration. They have exhibited no cohesive strategy on this end. Am I expecting too much from this bunch? You may say yes, but i think if you are going to strut around with your middle finger in the air and brusquely declare that ' we can go it alone', then we should be prepared to look a little more professional about it and not changing you tune and objectives in mid-stream each and every week to suit the political climate of that day. Sorry if this ruffles feathers, but this brand of arrogance rubs me the wrong way...”

“Well said, treebeard - I agree. The whole post-war scenario was mismanaged from the get-go.”

“If you liked Tom's list, you'll Really get a charge out of this one.


And here's a one for Strat the Quotemeister --

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."

-- Voltaire”

“And also it has now become apparent that we are so knee deep in the kaka that we have no choice but to spend the 87 billion. I also think that is just an installment. BTW, that 87 b is more than we spend on education in this country in a year from the federal gov't and more than spendon our infrastructure. As a further example of where things are going with cutbacks in education, this is what is being enacted in Florida to cut class sizes:

Is This A Reasable Answer?

How far are we going to dumb down, people?”

“Once again, Bush is misleading the public by declaring that the major fighting is over.

While technically its not a lie, that statement is intended to make people believe that, for all intents and purposes, IT IS OVER.

Time for the victory dance.”

“I believe the very next thing Bush said in his speech when he declared the major fighting over with was...

"But there is still much to be done."

If someone makes your assumption this means no one else is gonna die Tom, then it is their lack of brain power that would bring them to that conclusion.”

“Nigal's right, he said "major combat operations" are over. In his aircraft carrier photo-op, he did say "Mission Accomplished."

Relatively light is true, although more people have died since taking Iraq, than died taking it. Still, I think it was during the Tet offensive in Vietnam that almost as many American military lost their lives in two days as have died in the whole Iraq thing.”

“No feathers ruffled here Treebeard. You present yourself very well. However…

“"I think what I am alluding to was the rashness of the decision to go in and invade while discarding diplomacy and spitting arrogance in the face of the U.N. (whom Bush is now singing a different tune on and asking them for help).”

We had been playing shell games with Iraq for 12 years. Diplomacy had run out at every turn. Stalling is not diplomacy IMHO. I’m not saying that you are saying this so the next line is rhetorical. I’m perplexed when people demand that this administration does in months what the UN couldn’t do in 12. We Americans are an impatient lot.

I too share your frustration with how long this is taking. I had hoped it would be gelling by now. But we must admit that to think we blasted in there with absolutely no post war plan is a bit of a stretch. Everything has not gone the way we thought it would, but then again, when does it. This doesn’t mean there was no plan though.

Good discussion Treebeard.”

“Mission Accomplished!:
1) Tons and tons of WMD found and destroyed?
2) Saddam killed or captured?
3) Iraqis 'liberated'? (not fair to fair having an interim government imposed on them as 'liberation').”

“not fair to count”

“I'm starting to get real disappointed with this mess in Iraq, however, the Bush admin. went to the UN Security Council time and again to try and include them. Irrespective of who was right or wrong, they didn't want to play. Bush went ahead without them. Now Bush is giving them a chance to join in, and suddenly he's attacked for trying to include them? If he should have went along with them in the first place, why shouldn't he try to include them now? If they were the key to making this thing work, shouldn't we be glad Bush is asking them to come help clean up the mess?
Personally, I think the UN is as useless as teats on a boar hog--I don't think they could help with anything other than a feel good image for the rest of the world regardless of whether the UN or Bush is right. I don't think the UN track record instills much confidence.”

“Sorry, SW. I disagree wholeheartedly. Bush went to the UN while they were doing their work and told them they were inneffective and it's my way or the highway. We will go it alone if you don't do exactly what I say. The inspectors were at work at the time. You are basing everything you say on the resistance given from France and Germany. Don't mix the two up. And are our people who are looking for the WMD's any more effective in their pursuits than the inspectors were? I say, No way, Ray!”

“We also must keep in mind Treebeard that there is a literal mountain of captured documents that will take nearly 6 months just to translate it into English. NPR reported about a month ago that they have all the smoking gun they need but it'll just take time to release it.

Would you say that with how well they shuffled things around when the UN inspectors were coming and going, that if they had all that time we were tied up in the UN they could have moved them even more? Is this so far out of the relm of possibility?”

“And are our people who are looking for the WMD's any more effective in their pursuits than the inspectors were? I say, No way, Ray!"
Treebeard
10:53:06 PM
09/08/03

No argument on that part, but once again, if the UN was to be an integral part of making this a success, shouldn't we be saying "Thank God, Bush has finally realized the error of his ways and is asking for UN help"?
As for the UN inspectors and so forth, are you saying that the UN may have come around to the Bush position if they had uncovered more than some illegal missiles? I may have missed your point re: confusing France and Germany's with the UN position. Sorry, I'm tired. I'll go back and read your earlier posts. I just skimmed them and caught the part about snubbing the UN, so I'll re-read the whole thing, which I should have done before posting.

I'm basing my opinion on my disdain for the UN in general, not my waning confidence in Bush.”

“Nigal, I'm glad you find me more reasonable than some, especially since I came down on you so hard about the sedition thing, which, in retrospect, I regret.

I've made this case a number of times, but I'm not sure I've ever put in one post to sum up, so here goes:

1. Many members of the Bush administration were advocating an invasion of Iraq years before Bush took office. The New American Century advocated it in a public letter to Clinton, signed by, among others, Armitage, Rumsfeld, Perle, Bennett, and Wolfowitz.

2. The WMD threat, and related "hyperbole" were, indeed, purposely overstated. This should be fairly obvious, with a number of quotes from Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld basically making individual statements, that taken together paint a picture of an imminent threat to the US. I don't have the time to post links to all of them right now, but they're out there. I'll post them later, if you have questions.

3. The haphazard and reckless buildup and invasion were pretty well detailed by Treebeard above.

The bigger issue with this, for me, is that we've laid ourselves out completely for the expense, casualty count, and resentment of this action, which a better statesman might have been able to spread around better among the UN nations.

4. The amazingly optomistic or deluded manner in which the administration expected the Iraqi people to take to invasion and nationbuilding was, seemingly, purposely naive.

A number of studies both by internal and external sources painted a picture of a huge project with immense costs (we're talking money here) to rebuild Iraq in a democratic image. These were brushed aside, and ridiculously low figures were put in their place for the cost to "liberate" Iraq. This could be construed as criminal negligence if the US were a publicly traded company.

All of the above lead me to a conclusion that the Bush administration began the term with an agenda of Iraqi invasion, and after a brief stop in Afghanistan, used the terror attack of 9/11 as a pretext for this pre-planned invasion. the idea, apparently involved getting it done before the US public had time to think it through, and while support for military action was still high after the terror attacks.

Now that I've said that, I'd also like to point out that I'm glad Saddam is out of power. I'm glad the Iraqi people have the opportunity to have their own voice in their government. I think the world is better off without this particular dictator in place, and I believe the US was probably right in leading the drive to remove him. All the talk about us propping him in place beforehand may be very well true, but it doesn't change what the regime was when we removed it. Continuing to support him would have been wrong, of course.

There were other alternatives besides a US/UK invasion, however. The problem with those, though, is that they would not have opened Iraq immediately for business, with the US controlling Iraqi resources, US companies having contracts for Iraqi rebuilding projects, and the perceived polling advantages of a "won" war.

Do I think the neocons had the right idea about removing Saddam's regime? Yes.

Do I think we had the legal and moral grounds to do so in the manner we did? No.

Do I think the job was done ineptly and may fail due to bad planning and poor political capital? Yes.

Now we can cue Stratdewd's Jihad Bush quotes.”

“Phaedrus, give us your opinion of the initial hesitance of the US to go along with the UN program compared to the US willingness to allow UN involvement under US leadership.”

“Exactly my point, SMW. It would appear that a statement, such as "We know where the [WMD] are, they're up around Bagdhad and Tikrit" is a falsity Rumsfeld, at least, should have known better than to try to pass off as truth.”