Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Are Any of Us As Dumb as George W. Bush Thinks We Are?


"First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know
I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein... I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America."
-- George W. Bush, speaking in Cleveland, 3/20/06


"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"
--the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Armed Forces Against Iraq, 10/2/02


"We realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq."
-- George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, 3/21/06

17 comments:

Boski93 said...

Yes, those nice people in places that rhyme with "Fred Rates". How in the hell does he even have an approval rating above 34%. Wow, I am not a smart man, but he makes me feel like Steven "Freaking" Hawkings.

P.S. I love how he was saying that we need to look beyond the bloodshed. What???? What does he want us to look at, Haliburton's bottom line. Ponderus man, Ponderus.

Paul Israelson said...

Mike,

As a staunch supporter of Bush (85% of the time), I gotta challenge ya on this one, my friend.

Exactly when did Bush try to connect Saddam directly to 9/11? What were his exact words? Please don't take the words out of context, either. Let's review the entire text.


boski93,

It's Steven Hawking...not Hawkings. Before you ridicule the POTUS, first look in the mirror -- Speling is importent, tu!

Okay, I'll bite: what places rhyme with "Fred Rates?"

Here's an example of "look beyond the bloodshed": If we hadn't looked beyond the bloodshed of D-Day, the Allied forces wouldn't have defeated Germany and the Nazis would still occupy France, most of Europe, and probably Great Britain.

The price of freedom is blood. Always has been, always will be. That's just cold, hard reality & history proves it.

peeky said...

you mean one of the quotes from the Washington Post, New York Times, or you-name-it periodical where Bush & Cheney call evidence of an Hussein/Al Qaeda link "overwhelming?" Which then had to be disputed by the 9/11 commission? Yes, I guess we have to make that go away. Yikes. Next up: The Dem's made us go to war and cut taxes for rich people!

Boski93 said...

Mr. Israelson,

Thank you for your constructive criticism and I am not being snarky in saying this. I do apologize for my gaffe with the spelling. I should be more careful and concise when trying to make a point.

I am not in disagreement with you on the fact that blood has been split to defend this nation’s freedom and to safe guard that for others. Also please do not paint as someone who is against our troops. I do not have any qualms toward anyone who serves. I take umbrage with those executing this action, but my problems are as follows:

1. It’s very difficult for me to truly believe or trust Mr. Bush's judgment and his actions, in regards to Iraq. Please let me state that I am not saying I support Mr. Saddam, but he could have been successfully contained and he would been forced to either step down, or do something that would have given us a legitimate reason to interceded. By allowing Saddam to hang himself with his own rope it would have allowed us to focus on Afgahastan, until that day came. As for Afghanistan, even though it has had strides, it is a long way off from being stable, and we still have not found Bin Laden. But that is not what we came to talk about.

2. I feel this way because this was a half baked idea acted out in a half baked manner. Now we are seeing the repercussion of it. We failed to prepare for the aftermath of end of the combat phase. If we were going to go in then it should have been done right and with the proper troop level. And that the troops we sent did not have all the tools they need to fight is also something that truly angers me.

3. This military misadventure now has put us in a more strategically perilous position. It has created a new battle ground and recruitment tool for terrorist. It has given the radicals in Iran the fuel to get the moderates on their side. Since things are going so poor in Iraq we do not have forward bases need if we had to go into Iran, which would not be very pretty. It has also put any Mid-East Ally in a tough spot. Even though I am not the biggest fan of Mr. Mubarak and his tactics, he is better than the Islamic Brotherhood. Added with the issues in Palestine, it has put Israel in corner and may limit its ability to create a lasting peace (I know it is Pollyannaish, but I still hold hope). Being stretched out as we are it has emboldened North Korea to rattle their sabers. That all added with the lack of good will between the U.S. and the world puts our diplomatic efforts at a disadvantage.


4. Lastly, I feel that we need to look at the bloodshed. To realize what is at stake. That if this nations actions are not executed properly, then those lives lost will be for naught. As you used the D-Day Invasion as an example, maybe that would have not been necessary if the leaders of nations engaged in the First World War had looked at the bloodshed they unleashed. If they had took pause to see if their actions were worth the cost. Just maybe they would have not sent a generation to its death and set up the pieced up for a second war that killed even more. And as we know that led us to the Cold War and now we are stepping on those land mines, in the Mideast, Asia and certainly Africa.


Please excuse me for any spelling errors and most importantly any grammar and syntax errors. I never claimed to be brilliant writer or even a smart man.

P.S. I apologize for length of this comment. I just wanted to get that off my chest. I know there are probably flaws in my thinking, but that is what I feel. So I accept your scorn.

Paul Israelson said...

Peeky,

Connecting Hussein to Al Qaeda -- providing shelter, training, weapons, political influence, etc. -- is not a DIRECT connection to the events of 9/11. At best, this is an INDIRECT connection. Anyone who provided aid or comfort to Al Qaeda is indirectly responsible for Al Qaeda's actions.

When did Bush/Cheney accuse Saddam Hussein of DIRECT involvement in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attack?



boski93,

Perhaps my comments were actually more-than-a-little snarky. You did not deserve my scorn. My apologies.

I commend you on your reply. Your arguments are compelling and thoughtful. I cannot fault you for your conclusions; however, I do disagree with some of the assumptions upon which they are based.

You said "Since things are going so poorly in Iraq" -- I don't accept your premise. It is based upon information provided by biased, unreliable sources. The New York Times, CNN, Polls, the Washington Post, Fox News -- all must be taken with a big grain of salt.

Yes, things could be going better. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds could learn to get along and that would end the "insurgency." Then 90% of the US troops could come home. (We'll always have a presence in Iraq -- just like our bases in Germany, Japan, & Bosnia) Democracy could succeed & Iraq could become the shining beacon of freedom & hope for the Islamic world. These are BIG things that take time -- decades, at least!

Things aren't going as poorly in Iraq as the Media leads you to believe. Their Agenda determines what news they report. Don't fall for the bias. To get the facts, speak with some returning soldiers...I have.

Things could be better, but "poor" is not an accurate description. Civil War has not yet broken out, contrary to the Naysayers & Pessimists. Iraqi children are attending rebuilt schools. Businesses are springing up & prospering. People are getting married & having children. Women are experiencing freedom for the first time in centuries! Be patient.


Containment of Saddam worked in the short term, but eventually would have failed because

(a) he eventually would have rebuilt his WMD inventory
or
(b) he would have revealed to the world that he no longer had any WMDs

Let's not forget that every government in the world -- including Bill Clinton's -- believed Saddam had the WMDs before the invasion. Even Saddam's military commanders thought the WMDs existed!

IF Saddam had revealed the truth about his WMDs, the USA would not have invaded...but that revelation would have revealed Saddam's weakness to his Shiite enemies (especially IRAN).

It was a Catch 22 situation for Saddam --

(1) allow the Inspectors unlimited access & placate the West, but embolden the Shiites in Iran & elsewhere

or

(2) maintain the bluff and hope the USA won't invade.

Saddam gambled & Bush called the bluff.


I agree that we weren't prepared for the aftermath or end of the combat phase. Nobody expected the Sunnis to end combat so quickly, discard their uniforms, and "go underground" only to reappear as "insurgents" in such great numbers.

How would increased troop levels have changed the current situation? How can you distinguish an "insurgent" from a "civilian?" The ancient Romans knew how to deal with "insurgents," but those methods were brutal and are politically unacceptable today...unless your name is Jack Bauer!

How would the Democrats end the insurgency? So far all they have said is "we'd do it differently." John Kerry said "I have a plan." Well, the election's over. When will he share that brilliant plan with the rest of us?

Yes, it is a "new battle ground" - a battle between the formerly-oppressed Majority (Shiites & Kurds) vs. the formerly-in-power minority (Sunnis and their supporters). It need not be a violent battle -- Apartheid ended relatively peacefully in South Africa -- but all sides must be willing to compromise. Until that time, blood will be shed.

It is also a battle between those who want reform in the Islamic world and those who wish to continue living in the 12th century. It's an unavoidable confrontation. It need not be violent, but, again, all sides must compromise.

These are battles worth fighting.

The radicals in Iran are NOT winning the support of moderates. Just the opposite is happening. Iran's middle class is urging their government to soften the new President's extremist positions. Iran has plenty of oil -- they don't need nuclear energy at this time. And the last thing Iran wants is an Israeli attack!

The US will never invade Iran (or North Korea). It won't be necessary. A more likely outcome will be an alliance between Iraq and Iran, brokered by the USA.

Don't be intimidated by politicians rattling their sabres!

A demographic shift is occurring INSIDE the state of Israel. The Palestinian, Arab, and non-Jewish residents within Israel will soon outnumber the Jewish population! As that date draws nearer (approx 10 years), the Israeli Jews & the Palestinians will settle their differences. The barriers along the West Bank and Gaza will come down. The descendants of Abraham will once again coexist as they did in biblical times. (Relatively peacefully, that is. There will always be SOMETHING to argue about! It's a semitic trait! You can tell by my last name that I know of which I speak...)

Bottom line -- Bush and Cheney are a lot smarter than the Left portrays.

Conversely, Hilary Clinton is NOT the world's smartest woman, but she's a lot smarter than most! She deserves more credit than the Right gives her...

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric -- it's all politics.


I don't know how to respond to your 4th paragraph regarding WWI & WWII... I do believe that the Nazis would never have come to power if the Treaty of Versailles hadn't punished Germany so severely, but that's 20/20 hindsight on my part. Of course, once the Nazis had conquered France, the D-Day invasion was unavoidable.

And if Eisenhower had followed Patton's recommendations to push onwards to Berlin and then all the way to Moscow, the Soviets & Stalin would have been overthrown within a year & there would not have been a Cold War! The Generals are usually smarter at fighting a war than the Politicians.


P.S. You have stumped me. what places rhyme with "Fred Rates?"

peeky said...

Paul: I never directly said I disagreed with you. I didn't actually say those exact words. Yet you knew that I was disagreeing because my point was obvious and implicit.

I think it's a little disingenuous to say Bush/Cheney weren't trying to connect 9/11 and Saddam to help justify war. When Tim Russert asked Cheney on "Meet The Press" if he was surprised that the majority of American people thought Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, Cheney's response was: "No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection."

End of answer. Huh. Is that accurate and responsible? That's not really clearing it up, that's perpetuating B.S. and fear. When pressed, he reluctantly admitted "Well, we don't know." Yes, we did. BTW, I don't care what Bush told Hussein, nor will we ever know.

Every major periodical believes it was implicit that Bush et al were connecting 9/11, terrorism, and Iraq, and no offense, but I don't think all of them are wrong. I'm with Helen Thomas, who asked W. the other day why we really went to war, since it wasn't WMDs, or 9/11, and there are dictators just as bad or possibly worse than Saddam, including that one Saudi Arabian guy who attacked America. So why did we do this? It's a fair question and it doesn't make you unpatriotic to ask it, particularly since our children and grandchildren are going to keep paying for this.

No offense, Paul, and you seem like a reasonable person, but my own opinion is that it's pointless to argue politics (or religion) with people on the internet. Neither of us will change our minds. Of course we all support the troops and want a good, safe outcome, and can we stop needing to make that point?

I have staunch Republican friends but even they have to admit that things have gone disastrously wrong. It's not one side or the other at this point. We all have to figure out how to fix this.

Michael Markowitz said...

Paul,

I had vowed to stay out of this because, as Peeky points out, it's lose-lose. And clearly you've drunk the Kool-Aid so it's pointless to argue with you. But when you come into my house (as it were) and make glaring misstatements of fact, I have to step up, out of fairness to Bosk and Peeks.

Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda. Not at all. Many thought so (including President Clinton) years ago, but the whole idea's long since been discredited.

But Bush and Cheney kept thumping that tub. They did it so often YOU believe it. And every single time Bush or Cheney mentioned the words "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" they mentioned "9/11" in the next sentence. It's a cheap debater's trick.

And as he said the other day, "he was very careful not to say" HE WAS VERY CAREFUL NOT TO SAY?? That's something a liar says.

And it worked. 70% of those who voted for Bush in 2004 believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, even though Cheney had shamelessly backpedaled (as Peeky pointed out). As Al Franken said, "How stupid do you have to be to believe something the guy you're voting for says isn't true?"

Fortunately, according to a recent Harris Poll, that number of unbelievably stupid people has fallen to around 45%. But still...

And when Helen Thomas asked that question, did you see how Bush was unable to justify the war in Iraq without going to 9/11? He could justify Afghanistan... We can ALL get behind that war (which Bush left unfinished)... But the Iraq war is indefensible. He owes the brave men and women there an explanation.

We all know, from the Bob Woodward book and from other reporting -- and from our own eyes -- that Bush was determined to go into Iraq from the day he took office, and was looking for any excuse. 9/11 was just the one he needed.

You say the whole world thought he had WMD's. No they didn't. The whole world thought the inspectors needed more time, because they weren't sure.

This week, NBC broke the story of our mole in Saddam's cabinet, whom the CIA paid $100,000. He gave them all kinds of intel... but when he told them Iraq had no WMD's, they didn't believe him. He was right, of course.

Saddam defied the world and invaded Kuwait for reasons that made sense only to him. Bush defied the world and invaded Iraq for reasons that made sense only to him.

The difference between Bush and Saddam is you think Bush is the good guy.

If you were putting a bomb in a hole by the side of the road, you would think Saddam is the good guy.

If you were defying the world by flying a plane into a building for reasons known only to you you'd think Osama is the good guy.

Meanwhile Iran and North Korea are laughing their asses off, and Africa is a disgrace.

It ALL has to stop. Only by acting in concert with the UN, as part of a world community, can we end this madness.

Michael Markowitz said...

Long post, but Media Matters (http://tinyurl.com/fqdnn) says it best:

Over the course of the press conference, Bush called on 17 reporters. The third in line was Thomas, who asked him a pointed question about his rationale for invading Iraq in 2003...

In response, as in many previous speeches and interviews, Bush said that "no president wants war" and that American foreign policy "changed" after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bush began his response with an explanation for why the United States attacked Afghanistan after 9-11 -- that the country had "provided safe haven for Al Qaeda" -- even though Thomas had not asked about the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He went on to say that he "saw a threat in Iraq"; that he "worked with the world" to "solve the [Iraq] problem diplomatically"; and that he ultimately faced "the difficult decision" of whether to remove Saddam Hussein with military force after the Iraqi leader "chose to deny" United Nations inspectors. "And we did, and the world is safer for it," Bush said before calling on the next reporter.

Bush's response was rife with platitudes, evasions, and falsehoods. And, yet, no reporter who was called on subsequently challenged Bush on his response to Thomas, even though there are numerous follow-up questions they could have asked. For example:.

* Earlier you said that you decided to take military action against Iraq only after Saddam "chose to deny inspectors." But Saddam accepted U.N. inspectors in November 2002, and on March 7, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix requested more time for inspections, describing Iraq's cooperation as "proactive." In light of Blix's assessment, the U.N. Security Council refused to authorize an invasion. Is it not true that by threatening to launch war, you forced the inspectors to leave Iraq in March 2003?

* You have repeatedly said that you made the decision to invade Iraq only after exhausting diplomatic efforts. Earlier in the press conference, you said that you didn't want war and that you "worked with world" to "solve this problem diplomatically." But did you not make clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a January 31, 2003, meeting that the United States intended to invade Iraq even if the U.N. inspections turned up no banned weapons and you failed to get a U.N. resolution authorizing war?

* How does your argument that you were trying to avoid war by working through the U.N. square with a claim by the former British ambassador to Washington that you asked Tony Blair to support the United States in removing Saddam Hussein from power only nine days after 9-11? Did you not broach this topic at a dinner with Blair on September 20, 2001? If not, when exactly did you and he first discuss taking military action against Iraq?

* In his 2004 book, former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) disclosed that Gen. Tommy Franks, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, told him in February 2002 -- more than a year before the Iraq invasion -- that troops were being redeployed from Afghanistan to prepare for a military action with Iraq. Is this true? If not, who is not telling the truth? Did you order this redeployment? Did you know of it?

The reporters at the press conference could have also pressed him on his claim that he "saw a threat in Iraq":

* In the lead-up to the war, you repeatedly played up the Iraqi threat. In an October 7, 2002, speech, you talked of a "threat gathering against us" and warned of a "smoking gun ... in the form of a mushroom cloud." In the same speech, you said that "Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Do you now acknowledge that Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at the time of the Iraq invasion? If so, do you believe that, in 2003, Iraq posed as grave a threat to the United States as you claimed it did?

* In making the case for the Iraqi invasion, you claimed on March 17, 2003, that the Iraqi regime "aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." But the 9-11 Commission found that no "operational relationship" existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In light of that finding, do you believe that, at the time of the invasion, Iraq posed as grave a threat as you claimed it did? Is the commission wrong, or were you?

* Since the invasion, numerous reports have described considerable dissent within the intelligence community about whether Saddam actually posed a threat. Recently, National Journal reported that the CIA presented you with a memo in October 2002 that reflected the disagreement among intelligence agencies over the purpose of the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq. Did you see this memo? If so, why did you and your senior aides proceed to assert without equivocation that the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons production? If not, have you held anyone accountable for the failure to provide you with this seemingly significant intelligence? If you were briefed, what action did you then take?

* National Journal has also reported that, in a classified briefing 10 days after September 11, you were told that the U.S. intelligence community possessed "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." Do you remember receiving this briefing? If so, why did you and other administration officials proceed to play up the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship in 2002 and 2003?

Bush went on to take questions from 14 more reporters. But while six of these reporters asked questions pertaining to Iraq, none pressed the president on his answer to Thomas's question.

Paul Israelson said...

Okay, Mike. This will be my last comment regarding this post:

The real reason for the invasion of Iraq was __________________.


The solution to the current situation is __________________.


(Please fill in the blanks)


Then let's talk about last night's awesome South Park episode.

Michael Markowitz said...

The real reason for the invasion of Iraq is:

known only to Bush. Helen Thomas tried to get it out of him, but he ain't talking. He came into office with it, and he won't spill.


The solution to the current situation is:

God only knows. If I were President, and I had somehow bungled the last four years the way Bush has, here's what I would do. I'm not saying it's the right answer, but I think it's the only Hail Mary pass that would have a shot at solving the crisis, repairing relations around the world, and reversing my poll numbers.

I'd eat shit.

I'd go to the UN, I'd stand up there, and I'd apologize profusely. I'd say my hubris and my ego got the better of me. I'd say my intentions were the best, but I was caught up in nationalistic furor, and even though everyone warned me, I charged ahead and made a terrible mess in Iraq, and now I need everyone's help to clean it up. They can all hate America if they like, but the mess will impact everyone, and please dont punish future generations for my mistake. Let it be something I live with, not your grandchildren.

And then I'd actually take their advice, and their help.

Bush has never asked his father's advice, he's never asked President Clinton's advice, and he had all those Secretaries of State in and never asked their advice. He needs input, he needs help.

Now I'm sure there are a million reasons why that's not a great idea. But here's what Bush IS doing:

Staying the course in Iraq.

And making things worse everywhere else.

He invaded Iraq because they MIGHT have WMD's, told Iran they CAN'T develop WMD's, ignoring North Korea's WMD's... but we're going to help India develop MORE WMD's, while we tell our friends in Pakistan tough luck if their enemies in India have weapons and they don't, and meanwhile China is paying for this war of ours and covering Bush's massive deficit... but they're just supposed to sit there while we give INDIA NUKES????

And what tells me that somehow Cheney is going to come out of all of this a very rich man?

As for South Park, I am the only person in the world who doesn't watch. I just never got into it.

paul israelson said...

MY theory:

The real reason for the invasion of Iraq was...to establish a legacy for George W. Bush & his father.

The solution to the current situation is...to stay the course with, hopefully, bipartisan support.

Every leader, great & not-so-great, aspires to leave behind a legacy. Bush and Cheney don't need more wealth, power, or influence. Their only unfinished agenda is building a legacy.

Examples of former Presidents' legacies:

Washington -- father of the nation.
Lincoln -- saved the Union; ended slavery.
FDR -- the recovery from the Depression; saved the world from Nazi & Japanese Imperialism.
JFK -- the exploration of space; "ask not what your country..."; successful in the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Reagan -- the breakup of the Soviet Union & the discrediting of Communism.
Clinton -- welfare reform; 8 yrs of economic prosperity; the telecommunications revolution; the concept of universal healthcare

Bush's legacy, hopefully, will be
(1) the birth of Democracy in the Arab Middle East
(2) freedom and equality for women in Islamic countries
(3) the beginning of the Reformation of Islam
(3) resulting in the end of terrorism.

The noble aspirations & high ideals of great leaders & great nations are what inspire future generations.

Michael Markowitz said...

Okay, now I'm thinking you're trolling, and deliberately poking us with a stick, because no way you could support someone who would sacrifice thousands of lives to build a legacy for himself.

As for his Dad's legacy, he trashed it. The senior Bush was wise enough to pull out of Iraq, to not let his personal distaste for the way they live get in the way of the delicate balance of the region. The Pottery Barn rule meant something then.

As for reforming Islam, I'm not sure Islam was looking for George W. Bush to reform it. Just as we weren't looking for Osama to help us see the errors of our ways.

Let's drop the whole thing and go back to corkscrews

Michael Markowitz said...

Okay, just one more thing, just to prove I'm not crazy, and that even right-wingy CHRIS MATTHEWS noticed that the Iraq war resolution makes a liar out of Bush. Here's a transcript from the Don Imus newsletter this morning:



NEWS QUOTE OF THE DAY


Imus speaks to MSNBC's Chris Matthews about the decision to go to war in Iraq:

Imus: "I forgot who said this, it could have been Tom Friedman or, and I always thought that after September 11th, the administration wanted, maybe they always wanted to go to war with Iraq or whatever, but they wanted to demonstrate to the Muslim community and the Muslim world that we were not going to take that and that we were going to strike back at somebody and they picked what they thought was going to be the easiest target, they thought as that moron at the CIA said that it was a slam dunk. They went in there and instead of being greeted as liberators as the Vice President told Tim Russert a week before this thing started, they got in there and the thing blew up on him and they have been there three years trying to get out."

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "Well I am just going to stick to this point that the president led us in there with the background music of American culture. Everybody was led to believe that we were getting payback, we were avenging what happened on 9/11 and that we are going to get them. Vice President Cheney said we are going to attack terrorism at its base. Over and over the language was, this is where it came from, in fact most recently the President suggested that it was always the hot pursuit, like a new York police chase, we chased them back into their country. We pursued the terrorists back to Iraq and it's all nonsense. The reason there are terrorists in Iraq today like Zarqawi is we created the opening by blowing the country apart. From the beginning it's been not true. Now you can't prove motive and you can't prove somebody lies, but from the beginning everything about how they've got WMD's, they are a threat to us, they are going to bomb us with a nuclear weapon, t! his country is going to be an easy liberate, it's going to be a cake walk. As Cheney said as recently as ten months ago the insurgents are in their last throws. Everything that is said is not true. And right to the end here, here we are now and it's not a civil war and when Allawi the prime Minster is saying it is a civil war and here is the president quoting his own people that it's not a civil war. I mean the denial has been continuous. So you really can't count on the administration to tell you what is going on. That is just the fact. You've got to check it out. By the way, the president said this week that he wants the whole truth about what is going on in Iraq, the whole truth and that the media isn't telling the whole story. I'll tell you what we are not telling. We are not showing pictures of the twenty five hundred bodies coming back because they won't let us show the pictures. They don't want the whole truth out and that's the fact."


NEWS QUOTE OF THE DAY #2


MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "I think the president made a big mistake this week, and maybe I'm the only one that caught it, but when he came out and said he never said that we went to Iraq because of what happened on 9/11, that Saddam was never involved in 9/11, that whole mentality, the whole culture, the country music, everything, was saying this was payback. We are getting them in Iraq because of what they did to us on 9/11, and now they come out and say I never claimed that. Well you know it's in the actual language of when he said to congress, I'm now going to pick you up on that authorization to go to war, but we are going to war tomorrow, this is in 2003 in March, we are going to war tomorrow and the reason we are going is because we are going to get the countries attacked us on 9/11 we are going to get them. He clearly said all along. The Darryl Worley song remember how you felt, and you know all that stuff, the Vice President saying that Saddam was involved in 9/11 ! again and again. To come out now and say I never said this was payback is B.S."

Imus: "Didn't they actually say, because we were talking about that as well, because the way they left it out... didn't he actually say that they harbored terrorists, and as I pointed out the way that people pay attention to the news, which is not as much as you and I do, it was easy for Americans to infer that he meant... and by the way they did these polls, as you well know, in which the majority of the American people actually thought that the people who flew the airplanes into the World Trade center, the Pentagon and then the field in Pennsylvania actually came from Iraq, so while they didn't specifically say that they said that they harbored terrorists and the implication was... well you are right, but did he actually say that?"

Chris Matthews: "He said in the statement he gave to Congress when he said ok boys we are going to war tomorrow morning, in that statement he said I'm operating under the authorization that allows me to go after organizations or countries that attacked us on 9/11. Many times he said we can't distinguish between the people who attacked us on 9/11, we can't separate the two. The vice president was very clear, continually talking about coordination between the Iraqi intelligence and Muhammad Atta, who was the chief hijacker, it's right there in the tapes, and then Cheney comes out and denies it even though it's right on tape. Remember Gloria Borger interviewed him, I'm not sure if she was CBS at the time, but she interviewed him and he directly lied about it, and said that he did not say that. A number of times we have showed the tape and when he actually said exactly what he was denying on tape, we got the tape of what he was denying."

Paul Israelson said...

"No way you could support someone who would sacrifice thousands of lives to build a legacy"

History is forgiving -- Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc. -- of great leaders who sacrificed many thousands of lives to pursue their "noble causes" which built their legacies.

These leaders frequently resorted to deception, misdirection, and jingoism to pursue their noble causes.

Hell, Lincoln was vilified in his time! He took a lot more abuse than Bush, Reagan, and Clinton combined.


I support Bush. You oppose him. History will prove one of us a fool.


In the meantime, I'll save a bottle of Livermore Valley Cabernet Sauvignon to share with you on the day that the last US soldier leaves Iraq.

Michael Markowitz said...

That's nice of you, but even in the best case scenario -- which Iraq isn't -- we still have soldiers in Japan, Germany and Korea, so you start drinking without me.

Paul Israelson said...

Check out Madeleine Albright's op-ed in the LA Times today.

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-albright24mar24,0,5251258.story?coll=la-home-commentary

I actually agree with almost everything she said!

peeky said...

I agree! Madeleine Albright's piece is very good.

RE: "In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction."

It does seem like "common sense," but this diplomatic point has been stressed publicly by Albright, Clinton, and others and up to now it has been ignored.