+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    A Fitting Address
    The speech President Bush should give about Iraq.

    BY JAMES Q. WILSON
    Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

    President Bush and Vice President Cheney are arguing against critics of the Iraq war who are trying to rewrite history. There is some value in this, but it is a fight about the past and not about the future.

    What most Americans care about is not who is lying but whether we are winning. I offer this speech that the president might use to tell Americans that we are winning:

    My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.

    Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed. After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.

    Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.

    An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely.

    According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future. The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate.

    In some places, the terrorists who lost the war are now fighting back by killing Iraqi civilians. Some brave American soldiers have also been killed, but most of the attacks are directed at decent, honest Iraqis. This is not a civil war; it is terrorism gone mad.

    And the terrorists have failed. They could not stop free elections. They could not prevent Iraqi leaders from taking office. They could not close the schools or hospitals. They could not prevent the emergence of a vigorous free press that now involves over 170 newspapers that represent every shade of opinion.

    Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi government.

    The progress of democracy and reconstruction has occurred faster in Iraq than it did in Germany 60 years ago, even though we have far fewer troops in the Middle East than we had in Germany after Hitler was defeated.


    We grieve deeply over every lost American and coalition soldier, but we also recognize what those deaths have accomplished. A nation the size of California, with 25 million inhabitants, has been freed from tyranny, equipped with a new democratic constitution, and provided with a growing new infrastructure that will help every Iraqi and not just the privileged members of a brutal regime. For every American soldier who died, 12,000 Iraqi voters were made into effective citizens.
    Virtually every American soldier who writes home or comes back to visit his family tells the same story: We have won, Iraqis have won, and life in most of Iraq goes on without violence and with obvious affection between the Iraqi people and our troops. These soldiers have not just restored order in most places, they have built schools, aided businesses, distributed aid and made friends.

    To take their places, Iraq has trained, with American and NATO assistance, tens of thousands of new troops and police officers. In the last election, there were more Iraqi soldiers than American ones guarding the polling places.

    We know that much remains to be done. Sunni and Shiite leaders must work together more closely. We know that for centuries Sunni leaders, including Saddam, ruled Iraq even though the Sunnis are only a minority of its population: The terrorists began by killing Shiites but now have killed Sunnis as well, all without the slightest moral justification. But we know from America's own experience that when different groups work together constructively, they learn to trust one another. That must happen, and will happen, in Iraq.

    Our success is not confined to Iraq. Libya has renounced its search for nuclear weapons. Syria has pulled out of Lebanon. Afghanistan has produced a democratic government and economic progress for its people. Egypt has had the beginnings of a democratic vote. In an area once dominated by dictatorships, the few remaining ones are either changing or worrying deeply about those that have changed.

    We know now that some of our information about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was wrong. But we also know now what we have always believed: That Saddam Hussein, who had already invaded both Iran and Kuwait, had the money, authority and determination to build up his stock of such weapons. When he did, he would have become the colossus of the Middle East, able to overwhelm other countries and rain rockets down on Israel.

    We have created a balance of power in the Middle East in which no regime can easily threaten any other. In doing this, we and our allies have followed a long tradition: We worked to prevent Imperial Germany from dominating Europe in 1914, Hitler from doing the same in 1940, and the Soviet Union from doing this in 1945. Now we are doing it in the Middle East.

    And we are winning. Soon Iraqi forces will be able to maintain order in the few hot spots that still exist in Iraq. We will stay the course until they are ready. We made no mistake ending Saddam's rule. We have brought not only freedom to Iraq, but progress to most of the Middle East. America should be proud of what it has accomplished. America will not cut and run until the Iraqis can manage their own security, and that will happen soon.

    Thank you, and God bless you.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    A Fitting Address
    The speech President Bush should give about Iraq.

    BY JAMES Q. WILSON
    Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

    President Bush and Vice President Cheney are arguing against critics of the Iraq war who are trying to rewrite history. There is some value in this, but it is a fight about the past and not about the future.

    What most Americans care about is not who is lying but whether we are winning. I offer this speech that the president might use to tell Americans that we are winning:

    My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.

    Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed. After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.

    Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.

    An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely.

    According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future. The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate.

    In some places, the terrorists who lost the war are now fighting back by killing Iraqi civilians. Some brave American soldiers have also been killed, but most of the attacks are directed at decent, honest Iraqis. This is not a civil war; it is terrorism gone mad.

    And the terrorists have failed. They could not stop free elections. They could not prevent Iraqi leaders from taking office. They could not close the schools or hospitals. They could not prevent the emergence of a vigorous free press that now involves over 170 newspapers that represent every shade of opinion.

    Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi government.

    The progress of democracy and reconstruction has occurred faster in Iraq than it did in Germany 60 years ago, even though we have far fewer troops in the Middle East than we had in Germany after Hitler was defeated.


    We grieve deeply over every lost American and coalition soldier, but we also recognize what those deaths have accomplished. A nation the size of California, with 25 million inhabitants, has been freed from tyranny, equipped with a new democratic constitution, and provided with a growing new infrastructure that will help every Iraqi and not just the privileged members of a brutal regime. For every American soldier who died, 12,000 Iraqi voters were made into effective citizens.
    Virtually every American soldier who writes home or comes back to visit his family tells the same story: We have won, Iraqis have won, and life in most of Iraq goes on without violence and with obvious affection between the Iraqi people and our troops. These soldiers have not just restored order in most places, they have built schools, aided businesses, distributed aid and made friends.

    To take their places, Iraq has trained, with American and NATO assistance, tens of thousands of new troops and police officers. In the last election, there were more Iraqi soldiers than American ones guarding the polling places.

    We know that much remains to be done. Sunni and Shiite leaders must work together more closely. We know that for centuries Sunni leaders, including Saddam, ruled Iraq even though the Sunnis are only a minority of its population: The terrorists began by killing Shiites but now have killed Sunnis as well, all without the slightest moral justification. But we know from America's own experience that when different groups work together constructively, they learn to trust one another. That must happen, and will happen, in Iraq.

    Our success is not confined to Iraq. Libya has renounced its search for nuclear weapons. Syria has pulled out of Lebanon. Afghanistan has produced a democratic government and economic progress for its people. Egypt has had the beginnings of a democratic vote. In an area once dominated by dictatorships, the few remaining ones are either changing or worrying deeply about those that have changed.

    We know now that some of our information about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was wrong. But we also know now what we have always believed: That Saddam Hussein, who had already invaded both Iran and Kuwait, had the money, authority and determination to build up his stock of such weapons. When he did, he would have become the colossus of the Middle East, able to overwhelm other countries and rain rockets down on Israel.

    We have created a balance of power in the Middle East in which no regime can easily threaten any other. In doing this, we and our allies have followed a long tradition: We worked to prevent Imperial Germany from dominating Europe in 1914, Hitler from doing the same in 1940, and the Soviet Union from doing this in 1945. Now we are doing it in the Middle East.

    And we are winning. Soon Iraqi forces will be able to maintain order in the few hot spots that still exist in Iraq. We will stay the course until they are ready. We made no mistake ending Saddam's rule. We have brought not only freedom to Iraq, but progress to most of the Middle East. America should be proud of what it has accomplished. America will not cut and run until the Iraqis can manage their own security, and that will happen soon.

    Thank you, and God bless you.
    Pwrone,

    First, we had no right, or reason to attack a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us.

    Second, we had no business "bringing democracy" to a country that did not ask for our help or intervention.

    Third, terrorists do not start or fight "wars". They terrorize civilian populations in order to, cause social disruption, to make a political point, and achieve a political objective. Terrorists are not a single nation state, and do not have the wherewithal to engage in conventional warfare, so they, terrorize.

    Fourth, Iraq was supposed to be an ally of terrorists, that was the "reason" we invaded the country. Now James Wilson is saying the terrorists have lost in Iraq, I do not get it??

    Fifth, I do not know what letters Mr. Wilson is reading, but there are many soldiers who say our presence in Iraq is exacerbating the situation.

    The two emboldened sections are silly, contrary to reality, and sadly I might add, negligently inaccurate, especially the second section.

    And lastly, Why did not Pres. Bush give this particular speech, instead of attacking his critics?

    DeeDee1965
    Last edited by DeeDee1965; 11-28-2005 at 11:17 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,736

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Pwrone,

    First, we had no right, or reason to attack a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us.

    Second, we had no business "bringing democracy" to a country that did not ask for our help or intervention.

    Third, terrorists do not start or fight "wars". They terrorize civilian populations in order to, cause social disruption, to make a political point, and achieve a political objective. Terrorists are not a single nation state, and do not have the wherewithal to engage in conventional warfare, so they, terrorize.

    Fourth, Iraq was supposed to be an ally of terrorists, that was the "reason" we invaded the country. Now James Wilson is saying the terrorists have lost in Iraq, I do not get it??

    Fifth, I do not know what letters Mr. Wilson is reading, but there are many soldiers who say our presence in Iraq is exacerbating the situation.

    The two emboldened sections are silly, contrary to reality, and sadly I might add, negligently inaccurate, especially the second section.

    And lastly, Why did not Pres. Bush give this particular speech, instead of attacking his critics?

    DeeDee1965
    If my country was as screwed up as Iraq was before we went in (e.g. dictator killing innocent people on purpose, young children being indoctrinated into believing it is right to kill innocent people if they belong to western civilisation, etc) I would be grateful for change.
    Maybe that's just me. In my opinion the people of Iraq will come to appreciate living in a democracy once it is actually working.
    Like many presidents, Bush has not been appreciated in his own time, but it's my belief that in the future he will be appreciated for taking such initiative in Iraq.

    Just because they don't want it (because of previous indoctrination, I think) doesn't mean it's not good for them.
    I would object if America went in and tried to set it up so that they have control over Iraq, but they're giving Iraq back control over Iraq, something the Iraquis have not had for a long time, if ever.

    The Iraqui higher-ups supported terrorism, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism as he said so repeatedly in public speaches, including things like "we must kill all the evil Americans" etc.
    It wasn't the only reason we went in, another reason was to secure our oil supply (note: I said secure, not steal)

    I think most people would agree that Saddam should've been removed, that we were right in capturing him.
    So here's a rhetoric if you do believe that:
    What would happen if we went in, removed the Iraqui dictator, then just left?
    No doubt you will have your own answers to this, but I will share mine.

    What would happen, in my opinion, is that within months or even weeks another dictator would step up, could be even worse than Saddam, and it would be like old times. I am and always was in favour of giving the Iraqui people a chance at having a better future where they aren't afraid of what their own government will do to them, where they aren't afraid that they will starve because Saddam chooses to, on a whim, refuse food supplies to over-populated, poor areas.

    There may be many soldiers who think we're exacerbating the situation, that's fine, they're soldiers. Soldiers don't gain an over-all view, they only see what it's like in their own area.
    I'm sure many people have heard the story about the Japanese soldier in the 1980s I think it was, who ambushed a bunch of western tourists because he still thought WWII was going, and had been hiding all those years.
    This is why we have hierarchy in the army, soldiers aren't capable of making judgements because their knowledge and vision is limited. So if a soldier happens to be in a place that is being more hostile than the rest, even if it is the only place in the whole of Iraq that is putting up resistance (just for example) he or she could easily think "uh oh, all of Iraq must be like this, we don't have a chance".

    I've been quiet on this subject for a while, mainly because I've said all these things before (betamanmn will remember, we've both repeated all the above dozens of times because we're quite old members of the site) but I figured it's been long enough.
    Many of you have probably already heard these arguments elsewhere as well, but I hope that at least some of you will find one or two things to think about, as unlikely as that hope may be =P

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Pre-war Iraqi-American relations

    Prior to the Iran-Iraq War, U.S.-Iraqi relations were cool, and Iraq had been chiefly an ally of the Soviet Union. The U.S. was concerned with Iraq's belligerence toward Israel and disapproval of moves towards peace with other Arab states. It also condemned Iraqi support for various Arab and Palestinian nationalist groups such as Abu Nidal, which led to its inclusion on the incipient State Department list of states that sponsor terrorism on December 29, 1979. The U.S. remained officially neutral during the outbreak of hostilities in the Iran-Iraq War, as it had previously been humiliated by a 444 day long Iran hostage crisis and expected that Iran was not likely to win. In March 1982, however, Iran began a successful counteroffensive (Operation Undeniable Victory). In a bid to open the possibility of relations to Iraq, the country was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Ostensibly this was because of improvement in the regime's record, although former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Noel Koch later stated, "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism....The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran." [2]

    With Iran's newfound success in the war and its rebuff of a peace offer in July, arms sales from other states (most importantly the USSR, France, Egypt, and starting that year, China) reached a record spike in 1982, but an obstacle remained to any potential U.S.-Iraqi relationship - Abu Nidal continued to operate with official support in Baghdad. When the group was expelled to Syria in November 1983, the Reagan administration sent Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to cultivate ties.

    Due to fears that revolutionary Iran would defeat Iraq and export its Islamic Revolution to other Middle Eastern nations, the U.S.
    began giving aid to Iraq. From 1983 to 1990, the U.S. government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). [3] These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran. [4]



    An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce had approved, for the purpose of research, the shipping of dual use biological agents to Iraq during the mid 1980s, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), later identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program, as well as Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens. The Committee report noted that each of these had been "considered by various nations for use in war." [5] Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. [6]

    Chiefly, the U.S. government provided Iraq with economic aid. Iraq's war with Iran, and the consequent disruption in its oil export business, had caused the country to enter a deep debt. U.S. government economic assistance allowed Hussein to continue using resources for the war which would have otherwise had to have been diverted. Between 1983 and 1990, Iraq received $5 billion in credits from the Commodity Credit Corporation program run by the Department of Agriculture, beginning at $400 million per year in 1983 and increasing to over $1 billion per year in 1988 and 1989, finally coming to an end after another $500 million was granted in 1990. [7] Besides agricultural credits, the U.S. also provided Hussein with other loans. In 1985 the U.S. Export-Import Bank extended more than $684 million in credits to Iraq to build an oil pipeline through Jordan with the construction being undertaken by Californian construction firm Bechtel Corporation. [8] [9]

    Following the war, however, there were moves within the Congress of the United States to isolate Iraq diplomatically and economically over concerns about human rights violations, its dramatic military build-up, and hostility to Israel. Specifically, the Senate in 1988 unanimously passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," which imposed sanctions on Iraq. The legislation passed. [10]

    These moves were disowned by some Congressmen though some U.S. officials, such as Reagan's head of Policy Planning Staff at the State Dept. and Assistant Secretary for East Asian Affairs Paul Wolfowitz disagreed with giving support to the Iraqi regime.

    The relationship between Iraq and the United States remained unhindered until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. On October 2, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." [11] With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East."

    In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

    We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. Some have interpreted these statements as signalling a tacit approval of invasion, though no evidence of this has been presented. Although the State Department did not confirm the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that she had handled everything "by the book" (in accordance with the US's neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League's Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam's expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example, and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response.

    In November 1989, CIA director William Webster met with the Kuwaiti head of security, Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd. Subsequent to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq claimed to have found a memorandum pertaining to their conversation. The Washington Post reported that Kuwaiti's foreign minister fainted when confronted with this document at an Arab summit in August. Later, Iraq cited this memorandum as evidence of a CIA-Kuwaiti plot to destabilize Iraq economically and politically. The CIA and Kuwait have described the meeting as routine and the memorandum as a forgery. The purported document reads in part:

    We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition that such activities be coordinated at a high level. [edit]

    The 1991 Gulf War

    Hello People,

    Read this before you say the Iraqi people want, need, or should take our help, because we have cornered the market on freedom and democracy. The US and Iraq worked together. The US sold arms, chemical and biological weapons to Iraq. The US helped build up Saddam Hussein and his regime as a buffer, ally, against Iran in the 1980s.

    Yes, they knew Saddam Hussein tortured his people. The US was afraid of Iraq's possible threat to Israel. But when Iraq kicked out Abu Nidal, Pres. Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to "cultivate" ties.

    What I am saying is, there was a history of the US working with Saddam Hussein from 1983 to 1990. For 7 years the US was not concerned about, " the people of Iraq." The US did not care if the Iraqi regime used chemical weapons on their neighbors. Just as long as the neighbor of Iraq was an enemy of the US. All this emotional rhetoric about "the people of Iraq," does not stand up to the factual, historical actions of the US government and it's relationship with Iraq.

    Historical perspective is very important when trying to understand the present. Politicians are not in the business of presenting the big picture, they are in the business of getting reelected, garnering, wielding, and keeping power.

    DeeDee1965

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    432

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Regardless of what the Iraqi people want, Bush's reasons for invading Iraq proved to be a sham. It's disigenious to argue that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein. That follows the reasoning of "its better to ask forgiveness than to seek permission". If that was Bush's goal when we went to war, then that's what he should have proposed to the American people and Congress. The reason he didn't was becuase he would have not gotten the support he needed to invade Iraq.

    Kim Jong-Il is much more dangerous that Hussein was and yet, he goes about his business, rattling his sword and threatening everyone...and we don't act....Why not???...He meets all the Bush criteria for WMD's, threat of danger???

    Bush and his cronies duped the Congress and this nation into war for some sort of empire/nation building twisted logic. Now, unfortunately we are in a situation where we cannot leave...we caused the current instability and its our responsibility to clean up our mess.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by Synik
    Bush and his cronies duped the Congress and this nation into war for some sort of empire/nation building twisted logic.
    To say the Bush Administration "duped" the congress is actually pretty funny. Think about what you are saying and tell me if it makes any sense.

    Here is a man who has been in office for a couple of years who is able to convince members of Congress who have made it their carreer that he knows something they don't know.

    Not only is this a man who has been in office for only a couple of years, he is the arch enemy of many of the people who where on the front lines saying exactly the same thing.

    On one hand, the democrats and liberals are out there saying how stupid President Bush is, and on the other they are claiming this stupid man was able to convince them he know what now one else did. The same Democrats who where lobbying for the war this time around have been in Congress for years. They now complain that they did not get to see every intel brief word for word and that somehow President Bush was able to convince them of something they did not believe because he saw a few extra pages of intel.

    Not only did our Intel point to the facts as they where stated, intel from many other country's came to the same conclusion. To believe Bush was able to convince all these powerful people he and he alone had information now one else had ever seen and Saddam should be taken out based on his word alone is quite ammusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Synik
    Now, unfortunately we are in a situation where we cannot leave...we caused the current instability and its our responsibility to clean up our mess.
    You are correct in the fact we are in a situation we can not simply leave. It is our responsibility to provide everything we can to rebuild and stabilize Iraq.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    ok....i get it now...regulation e is your claim to fame!?and nice touch with the voice of reason crap!my reason or the highway reason!?still stuck in that avatar like impossible mind loop!?dont worry,your rightwing freinds here are stuck there with you.misery loves company they say!?misery with an attitude is even better!?i oughta know!?huh!?hehe!! oops!almost forgot......when i first read the bold print in POO's post i thought it said "fitted for a dress"!?WHO KNEW!!:p :D :rolleyes:
    Last edited by lexx; 11-29-2005 at 07:36 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,736

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by Synik
    Kim Jong-Il is much more dangerous that Hussein was and yet, he goes about his business, rattling his sword and threatening everyone...and we don't act....Why not???...He meets all the Bush criteria for WMD's, threat of danger???

    Bush and his cronies duped the Congress and this nation into war for some sort of empire/nation building twisted logic. Now, unfortunately we are in a situation where we cannot leave...we caused the current instability and its our responsibility to clean up our mess.
    On one hand people complain about Iraq, and then bring up Kim Jong?
    America is in great deficit and doesn't have enough troops to send in even if they weren't in deficit. I think everyone would agree that America has their hands full with Iraq, so why would they try to save another country on top of that? Better to do one job right than two jobs not-so-well, wouldn't you agree?

    Yes it is our responsibility to clean up the mess caused by us being there, which is what Bush has said all along. It was never the plan to just go in and get out.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,736

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    To say the Bush Administration "duped" the congress is actually pretty funny. Think about what you are saying and tell me if it makes any sense.

    Here is a man who has been in office for a couple of years who is able to convince members of Congress who have made it their carreer that he knows something they don't know.

    Not only is this a man who has been in office for only a couple of years, he is the arch enemy of many of the people who where on the front lines saying exactly the same thing.

    On one hand, the democrats and liberals are out there saying how stupid President Bush is, and on the other they are claiming this stupid man was able to convince them he know what now one else did. The same Democrats who where lobbying for the war this time around have been in Congress for years. They now complain that they did not get to see every intel brief word for word and that somehow President Bush was able to convince them of something they did not believe because he saw a few extra pages of intel.

    Not only did our Intel point to the facts as they where stated, intel from many other country's came to the same conclusion. To believe Bush was able to convince all these powerful people he and he alone had information now one else had ever seen and Saddam should be taken out based on his word alone is quite ammusing.


    You are correct in the fact we are in a situation we can not simply leave. It is our responsibility to provide everything we can to rebuild and stabilize Iraq.
    Great and hilarious thoughts!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    To say the Bush Administration "duped" the congress is actually pretty funny. Think about what you are saying and tell me if it makes any sense.

    Here is a man who has been in office for a couple of years who is able to convince members of Congress who have made it their carreer that he knows something they don't know.

    Not only is this a man who has been in office for only a couple of years, he is the arch enemy of many of the people who where on the front lines saying exactly the same thing.

    On one hand, the democrats and liberals are out there saying how stupid President Bush is, and on the other they are claiming this stupid man was able to convince them he know what now one else did. The same Democrats who where lobbying for the war this time around have been in Congress for years. They now complain that they did not get to see every intel brief word for word and that somehow President Bush was able to convince them of something they did not believe because he saw a few extra pages of intel.

    Not only did our Intel point to the facts as they where stated, intel from many other country's came to the same conclusion. To believe Bush was able to convince all these powerful people he and he alone had information now one else had ever seen and Saddam should be taken out based on his word alone is quite ammusing.


    You are correct in the fact we are in a situation we can not simply leave. It is our responsibility to provide everything we can to rebuild and stabilize Iraq.

    OH GAWD!!another endless impossible mind loop response from it's creator.how "reasonable" from the voice of reason himself,...gawd.can a leopard change it's spots!?not when it dont have to!!reminds me of when i "accidently" knocked over a pile of grocerys at the supermarket.i said to myself,can i leave!?and myself said back,sure!let someone else get it!!it was an "accident"!i reasonably agreed and departed.but if i had done it on purpose...... :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    First, we had no right, or reason to attack a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us.
    The key part of your statement is "not a threat to us". That is not what we thought back in march 2003 based on our intelligence and the determination of intelligence agencies throughout the world. As for our "Right', we had a right to demand Saddam account for his WMD's like he had agreed to do as part of his surrender agreement from the first gulf war. When he didn't do so, that gave us the right to attack, and congress, the senate and the overwhelming majority of the American people agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Second, we had no business "bringing democracy" to a country that did not ask for our help or intervention.
    When we took out their government, we had an obligation to assist them in building a new one. Exactly what type of government would you suggest we should have helped them establish DeeDee?


    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Third, terrorists do not start or fight "wars". They terrorize civilian populations in order to, cause social disruption, to make a political point, and achieve a political objective. Terrorists are not a single nation state, and do not have the wherewithal to engage in conventional warfare, so they, terrorize.
    I don't understand your point here?


    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee
    Fourth, Iraq was supposed to be an ally of terrorists, that was the "reason" we invaded the country. Now James Wilson is saying the terrorists have lost in Iraq, I do not get it??
    Neither do I... I mean your question.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Fifth, I do not know what letters Mr. Wilson is reading, but there are many soldiers who say our presence in Iraq is exacerbating the situation.
    You say "Many" letters? How many are you talking about? 5... 10... 20? Compared to the hundreds of thousands of troop that have been there, that is nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    The two emboldened sections are silly, contrary to reality, and sadly I might add, negligently inaccurate, especially the second section.
    The first section is not inaccurate DeeDee. Even David Kay said in his report to the U.N. that as soon as sanctions were lifted, Saddam had planned to resume his nuclear weapons program. I must say the same about the second section also. What part of that is inaccurate?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    And lastly, Why did not Pres. Bush give this particular speech, instead of attacking his critics?
    I can't answer why he didn't give that speech. As for "Attacking his critics", my question on that was "What took him so damned long?" He has sat idly by for 3 years and endured attack after attack from members of the democratic party and 95% of them (that is my guess) were either absolutely baseless, or were issues that were completely blown out of proportion, all for political gain.

    The way I see it DeeDee, the president was criticizing his attackers, not attacking his critics.

    .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    432

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by SubJunk
    On one hand people complain about Iraq, and then bring up Kim Jong?
    America is in great deficit and doesn't have enough troops to send in even if they weren't in deficit. I think everyone would agree that America has their hands full with Iraq, so why would they try to save another country on top of that? Better to do one job right than two jobs not-so-well, wouldn't you agree?

    Yes it is our responsibility to clean up the mess caused by us being there, which is what Bush has said all along. It was never the plan to just go in and get out.
    I bring up Kim-Jong Ill becuase of the made up reasons to invade Iraq. If you were to compare apples to apples...then Korea presented more of an immediate threat and has WMD potential. What is it that Korea doesn't have that Iraq does?

    With regard to cleaning up the mess in Iraq. All military advisors have said that to do this the right way, many more troops are needed to put down the insurgance. Troops in Iraq are stretched way to thin. Bush has created his own "catch-22"...and American soldiers are paying for his ineptitude.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,736

    Re: WHAT BUSH SHOULD SAY (the truth about Iraq)

    Quote Originally Posted by Synik
    I bring up Kim-Jong Ill becuase of the made up reasons to invade Iraq. If you were to compare apples to apples...then Korea presented more of an immediate threat and has WMD potential. What is it that Korea doesn't have that Iraq does?

    With regard to cleaning up the mess in Iraq. All military advisors have said that to do this the right way, many more troops are needed to put down the insurgance. Troops in Iraq are stretched way to thin. Bush has created his own "catch-22"...and American soldiers are paying for his ineptitude.
    A lot of things. Korea doesn't have the potential to supply the world with a whole lot of oil, and Koreans aren't a terrorist threat to the western world.

    It's funny how people think Bush is responsible for all these choices when, as all presidents before him, he has dozens of employees who present ideas to him, come up with financial plans and advise him in everything.
    So when you say "Bush" you're actually referring to a whole lot of people; Bush is the lead singer of the band.

Similar Threads

  1. Trump tells the truth about Iraq
    By tomInAustin in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-04-2016, 11:57 AM
  2. Ron Paul vs Huckabee and the truth about Iraq
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 11:16 AM
  3. Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2006, 01:48 PM
  4. Truth From US Embassy On Bush's Iraq-Nam Quagmire
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-19-2006, 06:25 PM
  5. The moment of truth....Elections in Iraq!
    By catch-22 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 01-10-2006, 09:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
$400, 000, ???, access, accomplished, account, accurate, act, actions, add, address, administration, advisors, aff, affairs, afraid, age, agen, agency, agree, agreed, agreement, ahmed, aid, allowed, ama, ambassador, america, american, another, answer, answers, appreciated, approved, april, arab, aren, arms, army, art, asia, asian, assist, assistance, assistant, ation, attack, attacking, attacks, attitude, august, authority, ava, back, baghdad, baker, balance, ban, banned, based, belligerence, belong, bet, better, billion, blown, book, borders, break, brief, bring, bringing, building, bunch, business, businesses, cannot, captured, capturing, care, catch, caused, central, cer, chance, che, cheney, children, citizens, civil, claim, claiming, clean, cleaning, close, coming, commit, common, complain, completely, concerned, concerns, condi, confirmed, conflicts, conversation, cooperation, cornered, corporation, correct, countries, country, crap, crisis, cronies, current, dangerous, david, day, dead, december, deep, defeat, defeated, demand, democratic, democrats, department, dept, described, designated, destruction, didn, different, diploma, director, disasters, diver, doc, documents, doesn, don, donald, dont, door, dow, duped, early, easily, east, economic, effective, egypt, electio, ells, embassy, eme, empire, employees, ended, endless, ends, enemy, enter, europe, exists, expelled, experience, extended, extra, factual, failed, fame, fears, felt, fifth, fight, financial, find, fine, fla, food, forces, forgery, forgiveness, forgot, fra, france, freinds, front, future, gain, gave, general, george, george h.w. bush, give, giving, goal, good, gra, great, groups, growing, had, hand, hands, happen, head, heard, held, help, helped, hey, hiding, high, higher, him, his, hope, hose, hospital, hostility, hot, huh, huma, human, humanitarian, hussein, ial, ian, ile, ill, ime, index, indoctrination, instruction, intelligence, inter, interested, internal, invade, involves, ion, iraq, islamic, issue, issues, james, jordan, judiciary, just, kenneth, kicked, killed, kim, knew, korea, last, lead, leaders, leading, league, led, legitimate, leopard, letters, liberals, libya, limited, lines, lives, living, loans, logic, long, longer, los, lost, lot, loves, lying, mad, make, makes, making, many, market, mass, mea, meeting, meli, members, mess, million, millions, mind, minister, moral, more, move, nation, national security, nationalist, nations, nato, need, needed, nego, new york times, nice, normal, note, november, now, nuclear, nullification, october, office, officers, officially, officials, oil, only, open, operation, order, ouch, overwhelming, pages, par, part, party, pas, passed, paul, paying, peace, pentagon, people, perception, permission, persia, picture, pile, pipeline, place, planned, planning, plans, point, policy, politically, poor, post, potential, power, powerful, prepared, presiden, pretty, prevent, prevention, progress, promising, promote, proved, public, published, pulled, putting, question, quickly, quote, read, reagan, real, real reason, reality, reason, reasonable, reasons, received, refuse, regime, remains, remember, reminds, removed, represent, research, respect, response, responsible, rest, resume, run, sales, screwed, scripts, search, secretary, secure, sen, senate, sense, september, serve, set, sex, share, ship, shipping, signed, simply, singer, site, social, sold, soldiers, solve, solved, sons, soo, special, specifically, staff, star, start, starting, state, state department, stated, states, stay, steal, step, stock, stop, story, stupid, succeed, successful, such, suitable, supply, supported, surge, surveys, take, taken, taking, talking, ted, tells, terrorist, the new york times, the truth about, they, thought, threat, threaten, threatening, time, times, title, top, tortured, total, touch, tourists, tradition, transcripts, tries, troops, truth, tyranny, u.s. government, undeniable, union, united, united states, ups, url, ussr, version, vice, victory, view, vince, viola, viole, violence, vital, voted, warfare, wars, weeks, western, wikipedia, wilson, win, winning, won, worked, working, worry, worse, writes, wrong, year, years, york, young, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •