In his speech, hiding in his made-up Commander In Chief jacket behind the legs of our troops, Bush still can’t actually respond to actual criticisms – instead preferring to refer to “Senior Democrat”. When Democrats criticize Bush, they call him out by name. They aren’t wimps like the man unfit for the White House.
And then what does he do? He jumps on a plane and skips town. Talk about sending mixed signals.
>> Harry Reid, a real leader who’s not afraid to name names, lays out some reality.
“Our troops deserve a strategy in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. That is why, for three years, Democrats have pushed the White House to lay out a plan for success.
“Unfortunately, the President has rejected our call, and instead, insisted America needs to “stay the course.” With more than 2,050 Americans killed& more than $250 billion spent& and no end in sight after three years of war — “staying the course” is no longer an option.
“Together, we can do better. Democrats have developed a very clear path forward.
Uhh, his name is George Bush. Reid refers to him as “the President.” By that logic Reid’s name really might be “Senior Democrat.”
You mean people who agreed Saddam was a bad guy? You mean all those people who invaded and occupied Iraq? Oh, wait, one guy did that. Bush.
Why should we? That’s not the point…the point is that the President is afraid to call people out by name.
And funny how few, if any, of those Podhoretz names (I saw the article earlier, thanks), actually wanted to go to war. Bawl all you want about how Clinton and his administration recognized the “threat” posed by Saddam…none of them sat in the Oval Office heading up an invasion instigated under false pretenses. The “they did it too” defense doesn’t fly here.
If you really want to know the names of some of the people who thought taking out Hussein was a good idea, check over here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
Oh boy Goat don’t bring Koresh into this. Koresh is a freaking martyr of the 2nd Amendment to the hard right wing. Diplomacy failed? They used Koresh to villify Clinton, Reno, the FBI and the ATF as the agents of Satan. Guess who tied Koresh and Ruby Ridge together to justify his own pre-emptive strike. Answer: Timoth McVeigh. Have fun.
Goatchowder, I missed where some members of the FBI/BATF were unconvinced that there were weapons in the Koresh compound, tried to pass that information onto their superiors, yet were ignored. The overwhelming FBI/BATF response was precisely because the presence of weapons was never in dispute.
Yeah, to recognise a threat is the same thing as invading.
The ATF recognised a threat from the Branch Davidians. You saying they were justified in pre-emptively going in to take them out?
I thought so.
Oh one more:
Do you not agree that Texas is safer with out David Koresh?
He was a madman armed to the teeth, making his neighbours feel uncomfortable. Good thing we took him out. Diplomacy failed. We gave him 48 hours to get out, and he didn’t! Local law enforcement wasn’t doing their job, so the Coalition of the Willing (FBI, BATF) had to it. He was obviously a clear and present danger.
We wouldn’t want that smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, now would we?
Have fun.
Matt Moore, if you can point at several people who could be reasonably argued to meet the definition of “the President”, you might have a point. Who are these other “Presidents” that would cause such ambiguity?
If you really want to know the names of some of the people who thought taking out Hussein was a good idea, check over here:
Way to hit back at those Democrats, Frank_D. Keep hammering those talking points.
I’m sorry. I thought Oliver’s post referred to Bush’s not “actually respond(ing) to actual criticisms – instead preferring to refer to Senior Democrat … I didn’t know we were talking about Koresh and Ruby Ridge.
The difference between the people who wanted to go after Hussein, thought he was a threat, thought he was in possession of dangerous weapons, voted for action to be taken against him; and the man who took the action is that the man who took the action wasn’t a “President wannabe” bullshit artist.
Otherwise, coming out now and saying, “I voted for the Iraq war, but I had my fingers crossed,” is worse than the usual run – of – the – mill bullshit we have come to expect from the Democrats.
All the other crap about Koresh and Ruby Ridge is just that — crap.
Frank! Language!
All the other crap about Koresh and Ruby Ridge is just that crap.
Yep, Frank is starting to lose his cool.
#47 in the EIB handbook of right-wing argument tactics:
When they make an analogy that hits close to home, pretend not to understand the analogy and accuse them of changing the subject.
Otherwise, coming out now and saying, I voted for the Iraq war, but I had my fingers crossed, is worse than the usual run – of – the – mill bullshit we have come to expect from the Democrats.
#26 in the EIB handbook:
No matter how many times it’s been refuted, keep repeating the talking point until even CNN realizes it’s been refuted.
Bush is flailing madly. He’s an embarrasment to this American. An absolute embarrasment.
Somehow these nitwits in the White House think that pointing out that 100, or even 1000 Democrats “supported the war,” excuses the utter incompetence with which this administration has prosecuted said war since it began. Perhaps “distraction” is a better word.
If this sorry and embarrasing excuse for a President could EVER admit he’s made mistakes, perhaps we’d at least acknowledge his ability to learn from them. If he’s feeling self-pity for being “attacked” for lying to us all, it’s his own inept fault.
WMD my ass. What exactly was it about Iraq in post 9/11 America, that made it more dangerous to America than pre 9/11?
JK
We all know who Reid was referring to, Rhys. We also know who Bush was referring to. Neither “named names,” and there was no ambiguity in either case.
Oliver, on the other hand, is being painfully ambiguous and obtuse.
OT, sort of:
Following the link Frank provided at the top of this thread, I read through Norman Podhoretz’ defense of the Bush administration. Not trusting Podhoretz to provide accurate context for quoted material, I started Googling them up.
In the process, I found this article in The Atlantic Monthly by former Clinton administration security council staffer (and Iraq hawk) Kenneth Pollack.
It’s interesting reading and included fodder for all sides of the post-war debate.
The link I posted here is from a University of Kansas website that has copied-and-pasted the article. On the Atlantic site, the article is behind the subscriber firewall.
Forgot to mention: the article is old–from January 2004.
BTW: One can never go far wrong doubting the accuracy of a Podhoretz quote. Practically everything he cited in the Opinion Journal piece was taken out of context or otherwise presented in a distorted way.
Only if one builds a straw man from the rhetorical excesses of blog commenters. Yes, if all you want to judge is whether the most outrageous black-and-white claims written in the comments sections of blogs are true, then you can pull the covers back over your head and return to dreamland.
On the other hand, if you’re still curious about how the Office of Special Projects got its start and what information it supplied to the White House, if you want to know how and why our leaders listened to a con man like Ahmed Chalabi (and still do!), if you care whether the President “marketed” an invasion of another country the way Proctor and Gamble markets soap, there are still some questions that need answers.
I only had to read a little bit to find the sentence, “Both sides appear to be at least partly right.” This would suggest, to me, anyway, that neither intended to deceive.
I scanned the article (no, I didn’t read it thoroughly) and found many hedging phrases, and (not unexpected) editorializing in defense of himself.
Be that as it may, I should think that the “Bush lied” meme and the “Bush administration cooked the intelligence ‘books’” meme, are both closed.
But, they’re not, are they?
Up until just a very few years ago, people were “asking questions” about Pearl Harbor.
If we’re condemned to a Democratic Presidency in 2008, with the war in Iraq still going on, there will be a hasty withdrawal, and the questions will end.
I thought the Rice administration was supposed to be a sure thing, Frank.
OK, 2016, then…
If the war in Iraq is still going on in 2016, I hope somebody has the sense to effect a hasty withdrawal.
Oh, don’t worry, the war will be over, allright, but the “questions” will continue wjile Republicans are in power.