"...It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years. And that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
"It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war."
Monday, August 21, 2006
Joe Lieberman's Words. Read. Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
The implication that there is something wrong with criticizing George W. Bush is unacceptable to most Democrats, who believe that Bush himself has done the most to undermine his own credibility.
I don't think it's a matter of just criticizing Bush. Even we conservatives have done that. However, when it becomes total criticizing, no credit, constant bashing and downright interference with a sitting President executing a war against a radical ideology bent on world domination, it leaves being just critical analysis.
With all the criticizing we read and hear of, the only constructive words we hear from the left is basically the old "cut and run."
That's been done before to the detriment of millions of innocent people. Now, the same moonbats are encouraging it again and once again, it will be to the detriment of millions of innocent people.
Like it or not, we fight these terrorists now or leave the fight for our children and their children. This isn't a game nor a political campaign and it isn't new. It's just the latest battle in a centuries old struggle that cease fires, truces and other feel good policies have kept putting off. Keep putting it off and you will see radical Islam ruling the world.
Evil can only triumph when otherwise good men sit back and do nothing!
In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It’s not about searching for scapegoats; it’s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge. [Press Conference with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Re: War in Iraq, 7/28/03]
Maybe Green Zone Adam and GOP Leiberman can get married. They both sound like a pair of jackasses mean't for each other.
The fact is the Iraq War has been lost. The place is already in civil war - what are we going to win? The hearts and minds? Quagmire Republicans, quagmire. What have we gained? A little place called the Green Zone, or "little America" is all we have. Having control over a few blocks in the middle of Baghdad is not a victory and it certainly isn't a victory in the "War on Terror".
The American people on the majority, 60%, oppose the war. That is due to the failed nation building and forced democracy policy of the Bush Administration. Americans want a withdrawl of some US forces by the end of the year. How much plainer can it be to you thick heads. The ship sunk many, many moons ago and you guys are clinging to the bow like fools.
Republicans that can't deal with the facts amazes me. This is one reason Leiberman got the boot. His constituents are sick and tired of his two headedness and so are Americans. Americans want security, not a bunch of soldiers getting wasted for nothing. The Iraq War has been nothing but a distraction, a waste of resources and drain on our own nation's security.
There will be a pull-out from the Green Zone, or "little America" soon. The U.S. can't afford to keep wasting tax dollars on a lost cause. Americans won't allow it.
Please name those on the left that have used the words “cut and run” as applied to Iraq. Sounds like a rightwing two word soundbite.
Your alternative is ttay the course but that is no longer enough. Why are we still there? For some of Bush's countrymen, there is a sense of having been had, of having been made victim to one of the great bait-and-switches in the history of warfare.
The president, his War Cabinet and the neocon punditocracy sold us on this war by implying Saddam was implicated in 9-11, that he had a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, that he was working on an atom bomb, that he would transfer his terror weapons to Al Qaeda. We had to invade, destroy and disarm his axis-of-evil regime. Only thus could we be secure.
None of this was true. But the president won that debate and was given a free hand to invade Iraq. He did so, and overthrew Saddam's regime in three weeks. What is our mission now? When did it change? Why are we still at war with these people?
The president says the enemy is "terrorism" and "evil," and we fight for "democracy". Why should Americans have to die for democracy in a nation that has never known it? Democracy in the Middle East is not vital to our national security.
Don't expect anything constructive to come from this administration during the next 2 1/2 years in office. No plan to control violence. No plan to avoid civil war. If Bush remains true to form, he will simply kick this problem on down the road for the next administration to deal with.
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. Just more defeatism and hate America as well as Blame America and Republicans.
And again, a snide remark made against a Servicemember. Will you be at the head of the line to spit on him as well, Robert?
No solutions offered, just cut and run and gleefully watch as millions die at the hands of oppressors again.
The legacy of the left, "Screw you, I got mine."
An Iraqi Thank-You
George Bush has made Iraq a central front and recruiting ground for terrorists where it wasn't one before. As long as the US is in Iraq, American and Iraq defense forces are going to be targeted. There is no guarantee that, starved of fuel, the insurgency will stop once we leave. But there is no doubt that it will never, ever stop as long as we are there.
And George Bush still lives in his bubble.
As you should know from listening to my show and reading the blog, threl, Saddam Hussein gave money, training (Salmon Pak among others), and hiding places to terrorists of every stripe. He used to host what are essentially terrorist conventions in Baghdad--well before the war at which Zawahiri attended (#2 Al Qaeda). He and UBL agreed to a non aggression pact in the late 1990's. Saddam's #1 Intelligence chief met with Zawahiri (w/UBL's blessing) in Sudan and used that country's leader (Turabyi) as the go between. The guy who mixed the bomb for the first world trade center bombing was Iraqi and when this war broke out was still in hiding there.
Threl, it's one thing to really not know what you're talking about; it's quite another to purposely misinform. Since I've seen you on this blog quite awhile with all of the facts on this and supporting docs placed before you over the past year or so, I conclude you're purposely trying to mis/dis inform.
Care to offer a solution Lew, rather than more of the same while expecting different results. How about more troops? The number we have are not getting it done.
General Shinseki said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. If we want to win then let's listen to the generals. Staying the same course is not working.
Good point Cramdown. Not having enough troops prevented the securing of Iraq borders. The terrorists flooded in making Iraq a central front and recruiting ground for terrorists where it was not one before. Whether you are on the left or right, we can agree that the management of this war was atrocious
The war went well initially. The aftermath went wrong for many reasons, some of which the Administration has to take credit. However, that does not change the fact that we must stay in the fight and succeed. We must remember that Syria and Iran want us to fail and have been making trouble in Iraq similar to the proxy war with Israel.
Victoria, if you believe Iraq was a CENTRAL front and recruiting ground for terrorists BEFORE the US invasion then we disagree.
Before the war Iraq was a financer and supporter of terrorists. Abu Nidal was in Bagdad before the war and was killed by Iraqi forces just prior to the war.
Cramdown, you say "listen to the generals," then post one! Don't you care to listen to the multitude of generals actuallu prosecuting the war?
More troops? Works for me. Is that what you want? Or, is it the same old tired "cut and run" from the left?
More equipment? Sure. Or, is it cut the Defense Budget, as usual?
You on the left can't have it both ways.
I want victory, something that you and your ilk, despite numerous representations and promies, have been unable to provide. In the alternative, I think we should redeploy, leave, cut and run as you would say. There is a cost/benefit analysis to be considered here. The continuation of the status quo is unacceptable. Bush says it is, but does not explain why,
Cramdown, I disagree that there is a status quo in Iraw or that victory is possible. The situation there deterioriates daily. Iraq is hopeless. The first thing to do when you've found you've dug yourself into a hole is to stop digging. Iraq is destined for civil war whether we stay a day, a month, a year, or ten years. Everyday we are there we are creating highlight reels for Al Jazeera which draw ever more disaffected people to Jihad.
We need to repair our reputation with the world and go about the business of interdicting the high level operatives who are trying to do us harm in this country. None of whom have anything to do with Iraq.
mongo7,
What reputation are you talking about. The one that we cut and run when the going gets tough or the one that we cannot be relied on.
Breaking News: Stock in Kiss of Death from President Bush sank to below a dollar in today's closings.
Yes, even once strong Republican supporters of the Iraq War are now running scared.
I imagine they are either afraid of being "Liebermaned"--that they can't get elected unless they get the "liberal antiwar vote". Or that the Iraq War, like the whole of the Bush Administration's foreign policy is a complete failure.
Pssst...I think it might be both. Hahahaha
Roger Doger
I want victory, something that you and your ilk, despite numerous representations and promies, have been unable to provide
If you really desire a fast victory, Crammie, instead of sitting behind your computer every day, why not enlist and go do your part?
No one has ever said it was to be a fast victory. Bush has repeatedly stated it will be a long hard fight. The second day of the invasion we started hearing "quagmire." Right off the bat, the left started doing everything imaginable to oppose and at times, outright interfere.
You really want victory? Then back the attack. Show some support. Demand the troops receive what they need. Oppose those that demand a cut and run policy, which is surrender, not a victory.
You cannot have victory by tying the hands of our Military with Political Correctness, scrutinizing every little move they make and accusing them of "cold blooded murder" even before they are investigated.
Don't forget, Viet Nam was prolonged by 5 years due to the efforts of the anti-war left. They gave the Communist North the will to sustain massive losses and hit us with harassment and interdiction fire, attacks and propaganda. All they needed to do was simply kill a few Americans, any way they could.
Then, they fed the anti-war left talking points; they played to the news media as if they were the victims instead of the attackers. They cried it was just a civil war when it wasn't.
You know the result.
We can never have a victory again as long as we continue to abandon allies in their struggles for freedom. We become known as a "Paper Tiger," having no will to fight.
In the end, we sacrifice thousands of American lives for naught. We give our enemies cause to ridicule us and attack us again and again. Then, we sit back and hear all the catcalls of the anti-war left about how they stopped a war when they caused it to be lost.
One thing you will not see in this scenario of the anti-war left is victory.
How can you expect victory in the face of all your opposition?
Yes, even once strong Republican supporters of the Iraq War are now running scared.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
McPain? One of the biggest RINO's in the Senate?
Get a life!
Funny, when Republicans support the war, they are Republicans. When they oppose the war they are RINOs. And when neo-Conservatives support the war they are "patriots", but when they oppose it, they are "america hating liberals". This logic must play well for the inbred highschool dropouts like Adam the Soldier that feels "safer in Iraq". Keep it up Piggy Lew, maybe the God fearing Republicans can run you in 2008 for President of Am'rika.
No Robert, that isn't at all what makes ones like McPain a RINO. But, a smart feller you already knows that.
As is becoming more and more typical, some on your side seems to feel attacking the troops is warranted. You remind me of another who occasionally stops in. He wasn’t all that bright either. Just keep on singing away. I love how you keep placing your foot firmly in your mouth and your head elsewhere.
I’d say more, but I don’t want to interfere with your sweeping and mopping the bank floor.
Piggy Lew,
Yeah, it is clear now why you are so bitter. As a Vietnam Vet, I imagine if you had spent more time humping the ruck like you do typing the bunk, you may have had more sucess over there. You need to stop living through U.S. Soldiers in Iraq, somehow trying to hold out hope that they are going to redeem U.S. failed policy in Vietnam. It is a done deal, chief.
Lunch break is over. I best get back to "mopping the floor", and let you get back to having your flashbacks as a "has been". Boy, I bet that Siagon Stew you eat everyday goes down tough.
Later Gater!
One of us has too much class to continue with the tit for tat ad hominem you enjoy engaging in every time you pop in under a different name.
Apparently, it isn't you!
Bash away, you're just talking into the wind.
Ms Taft:
In his recent news conference, President George W. Bush admitted that the United States found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Robert: Your atack on Lew saying that had he been "humping his ruck like he does typing bunk" we might have had more success in VietNam.
There were two (but not limited to two)very valid reasons for our lack of success over there. #1. President Lyndon Johnson and #2. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Both were Dumbocrats who micro-managed the war over there to the point that our military was not even allowed to get near Hanoi to make bombing runs or for any other reason. And that was just one of the many, many failures they made. You could ask any Former Marine who was there and they will tell you the same thing.
I have a friend in Montana who was in the Army's version of the SeaBees. He spent his 2 tours there helping build the Air Base at DaNang as well other similar projects. He said they even micro-managed those projects.
So, before you start attacking Lew and his former service buddies for what you perceived was their "failures", you would be wise to bone up on your facts about that war and lay the blame at the feet of those Dumbocrats here in the U.S. who kept it screwed up here where they were safe.
Scottiebill of course fails to mention that Nixon(has a secret plan to end the war) became president in 1969 and that Ford became president in 1974. Final exit was in 1975. What did they do to right the wrongs of the prior administration? I still think that Rumsfeld makes McNamara look good. No need to rehash the Vietnam War, we are reliving it in Iraq.
Get over it folks it does not matter how we got into Iraq anymore. What matters is that we are successfull. If we pull out they'll follow us home and we'll be fighting them here. Ya don't believe well they are already here (for example the groups demonstrating in NY against the Israeli - hezobolah war.)
Looking back on real and supposed terrorist attacks against the west, one begins to wonder whether we would have done just as well to invade England or Pakistan as Iraq, since the former seem to be where the terrorists are hanging out these days.
mongo,
Brilliant comment there. Invade friends and allies instead of sworn enemies like Saddams Iraq and Taliban's Afghanistan.
What did they do to right the wrongs of the prior administration?
Mongo, even though I disagreed with the way he did it, Nixon did get the Paris Peace Accords that had us walk away from Viet Nam, as polls and sych said the majority of Americans wanted.
In 1975, when Saigon fell, Nixon had promised we would re-enter if North Viet Nam invaded the SOuth, a clear violation of the Pari Peace Accords.
However, President Ford, one of my least favorable Republicans, had his hands tied due to a mostly Democrat Bill passed prohibiting support to Viet Nam. We pulled out in March 1973. The Case Church Amendment was signed June 19, 1973 which forbade any further U.S. military involvement in Viet Nam and went into effect August 1973. It was passed as a veto-proof vote of 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate.
To America's shame, it was passed by members from both parties, effectively tying the hands of the President to live up to our agreement under the Paris Peace Accords.
Looking back on real and supposed terrorist attacks against the west, one begins to wonder whether we would have done just as well to invade England or Pakistan as Iraq, since the former seem to be where the terrorists are hanging out these days.
Mongo, this is why you can't get it. We are not fighting a country, as we always have before. We are fighting a centuries old ideology of hate, oppression and enslavement.
We didn't invade iraq to conquer the Iraqi people. We invaded to rid them of Saddam, who was oppressing his own people, who was suspected of having WMDs that could very easily have fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, who had financed and trained terrorists as well as harbored some.
Basically, it was the same thing in Afghanistan. We invaded to rid them of the Taliban who was backing Osama Bin Laden.
Bush and conservatives have no desire to conquer anyone, but to see freedom reign and give people a chance to come into the 20th century.
This is also what makes the fight all the harder, we are not fighting a uniformed military. We are fighting a well trained and financed insurgency (if you will) that hides in mosques, behind women and children and wears no uniform.
Still, they are an enemy that must be defeated and destroyed
to save Western Culture.
Iran may be next. Not necessarily a military invasion, but hopefully by backing Iranians that are fed up with Ahmanutjob and Fundamentalist Islam to overthrow them. Still, we better be prepared to support them this time. We don't need troops, but we better show support and supplies.
Why not be on the winning side, for once? Take a stand against evil and see the world become better after it is defeated again.
There are those of us who see the war in Iraq as distinct from the fight against terrorism and believe that Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats. The efforts to provide a link between the war in Iraq and the broader anti-terror effort are unpersuasive.
Lew, kindly stop suggesting a bogus link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The Sept. 11 Commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. BTW Bush also confirms no connection between 911 and Iraq.
This is a war that is going to last longer than WWII, will cost over half-a-trillion dollars, over 2600 American lives, some 20,000 American wounded, and caused 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
This is war that has made Iran the strongest country in the Middle East, has badly damaged the United States' reputation and moral standing around the world. A war that conservatives like Brent Scowcroft and William F. Buckley have already deemed a failure. This is a war hatched by neoconservatives, who George Will just called the most "radical people" in Washington, DC.
This is a war which has less popular support than Vietnam.
Winning side?
fizzi,
Go read the commission report again. The commission's finding concerns only 9/11. There was no conclusion that there were no contacts between Saddams government and Al Quaeda. Bush never said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, it is good that you have finally noted that fact.
One fact remains the war in Iraq has to be completed successfully otherwise Iran will dominate that region of the the world. That would be extremely bad for us since Iran would use oil to crush our economy.
Conclusion:
Stay the course and find a way to win, even if that means sending in more troops. Pulling out is not an option.
Wrong Kodiak. The 911 report is explicit. As for Bush never saying there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 he was happy to have Cheney and others do that to further his cause.
Iran is the real winner in this war. Saddam was able to control the Shiites. Now Iraq is on it’s way to becoming Islamic state with close ties to Iran.
Conclusion:
This is a fiasco. Pulling out is a definite option if Bush does not come forward with a plan to win. So far no plan. More of the same does not cut it. The myriad of mistakes in fighting this war are coming home to roost. More troops are an option if they can be found. More troops did not help in Vietnam and I doubt if they will help here. Stay the course appears to be stay and die. It may be satisfactory to some that Bush got his quagmire, but not me. What a waste!!
fizzi,
Can you afford $20.00 a gallon for gasoline?
fizzi,
You are dead wrong concerning contacts and Al Qaeda. Go back and read chapter 2 of the Final 9/11 Commission Report. This chapter details contacts in 1999 between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Gas was $1.47 a gallon when Bush took office so anything is possible. I sure wish Bush would tell us what he is doing as far as a plan for victory. Like I said, more of the same just will not cut it. How about a realistic alternative to redeploying?
fizzi,
Go to Townhall.com look up Hugh Hewitt's interview with the Central Commands Commanding General.
Easy look at the situation as a whole. MSM will have you believe that all of Iraq is experiencing security issues. The problem is in and around Bagdad, where we are currently concentrating more troops and efforts to secure the region.
Bush has delegated the plan to the Generals and Rumsfeld. Bush has not been consistant on talking about the war as he should be. I am sure it would help people have the patience to see this through. I think they are making course corrections and are just being quite about it.
The Sept. 11 Commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.
fizzi, you really should read the whole thing and not just the Liberal talking points portion.
Jim Thompson former governor of Illinois and member of the 9-11 Commission: When asked by Soledad O’Brien on CNNs Good Morning America on 18 June 2004: "So we hear from both President Bush and Dick Cheney clearly there was a relationship. Does your report contradict what the White House is saying?" Thompson answered: Not at all. In fact, the report says that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are correct. It's a little mystifying to me why some elements of the press have tried to stir this up as a big controversy and a big point of contradiction because there is none. We said there's no evidence to support the notion that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein collaborated together to produce 9/11. President Bush said that weeks ago. He said it again yesterday. The vice president said it again yesterday. I said it again yesterday in television interviews. What we did say was there were contacts between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein, and the president has said there were contacts. The vice president has said there were contacts. They may be in possession of information about contacts beyond those that we found, I don't know. That wasn't any of our business. Our business was 9/11. So there is no controversy; there's no contradiction, and this is not an issue.
Nice typical spin in your own words as well, fizzi. You first say the 9/11 Commission said there was No Collaborative Relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Then, you slyly slip in even Bush agreed there was no relationship between Iraq and 9/11. You neglect to mention that the 9/11 Commission only said there was no collaborative relationship IN REGARDS TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS!!!
They clearly say Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda had ties, to what extent, unknown as it wasn't the commissions concern.
Talk about spin. You and Kodiak would be far more convincing if you could produce evidence of collatoration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Contacts which Saddam rebuffed are not sufficient. The burden is on you. You forget that Osama considered Saddam an infidel. Evidence please.
Talk about spin. You and Kodiak would be far more convincing if you could produce evidence of collatoration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Contacts which Saddam rebuffed are not sufficient. The burden is on you. You forget that Osama considered Saddam an infidel. Evidence please.
fizzi,
If I could produce meeting minutes and you would still blow it off. As Lew said you have not completely read the 9/11 commission final report. The fact is Saddam supported terrorism there were many examples. I am not going to detail them for you, that would be a waste of my time.
If you go back in history look up the USS Stark. This alone was an act of war that was not responded to by a previous administration.
The fact is you would never support going to war for any reason period.
You have made my point Kodiak. You have no evidence of collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda.. Let's see if Lew has any.
fizzi,
I have not made your point, I was being sarcastic in making my point. The point is 2 fold 1. There was offical contacts between as detailed in the commissions report. You say this is not proof, I disagree. The terrorist attitude is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Osama and Saddam my not like each other and Osama would turn against Saddam after he used him and visa versa. The documentation is not specifically located in the commissions report but in the thousands of documents captured as a result of the Iraq war. So I can prove it and so can Lew. 2. You are being extremely lazy.
The fact remains is that you would never support going to war for any reason period.
THe fact remains that you have not produced any evidence, only vague references. I supported going to war against Afghanistan. I was lied to about going to war with Iraq. The lies continue. I am certain that Lew can come through with some slam dunk evidence.
Fizziwigg, Kodiak, et al. We are long past arguing about the justification for the Iraq War. Reasonable minds can differ. However, what cannot be justified is the incompetent prosecution of the war for which we are paying such a dear price. Fiasco is too kind of a word
fizzi,
Your laziness knows no bounds. I suggest you look up articles by Stephen Hayes, you can find him at The Weekly Standard. I am not going to do your work for you. I have already read up on this issue.
You were not lied to. Bush may have been given bad information and he ran with it. That does not mean he lied to you. He would have to known the information was bad and used anyway. There is no proof of that. Only Democrats who had said the very same thing even before Bush ran and was elected then turned around and accused him of lying. There was and still is a lot of misdirection by the democrats and you fell for it and still are.
Sorry, I am not going to do your work for you. You have the burden of proof.
fizzi,
Actually I have nothing to prove I am not living in a bubble like you. I have done the research as time progressed and thus have seen enough proof. I am not your information collection agency either, that is your responsibility. I can not help it if you have been wearing blinders for the past few months.
Secondly I do not recognize your divinity on this or any other matter.
Bottom line is Saddam had to go and the situation in Iraq needed resolution.
Therefore, the fact that there was no collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda stands.
fizzi,
A fact that exists only in your mind.
Fact: There is no amount of proof that you'd accept to change it.
Your failure to accept references where the proof exists demonstrates this fact about you.
Thus the fact that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda before the war stands.
A "fact" that you are unable to prove.
Come on Fizziwigg, give the guy a break. What are you going to do next, ask Kodiak to prove the existence of WMDs or that Iraq was reconstituting it atomic program? Show som mercy.
fizzi,
The fact about you is a done deal. You have provided all the proof required.
The proof of Iraq and Al Qaeda ties has already been proved by others that have access to the actual documents.
You are in denial, and Lew has been with my assistance trying to help you. However, it appears that residential treatment is called for in your case and hopefully your family will intervene and help you.
mongo7,
Lets not go there because the statements you have referred to can be proven. No I am not going to drag out the evidence. You'll have to pay closer attention and access other sources of information that may hurt your eyes.
I do not require a ton of evidence to appriciate the necessity of ousting Saddam and his sons.
I will say this Saddam was supposed to have zero (0) WMDs period, they have found small stocks of chemical weapons. Yes even degraded ones count as WMDs. Degraded weapons do not count as destroyed. Look to Umatilla Army Depot for actions required to destroy chemical weapons.
However, even the administration does not claim these as WMDs, only the rightwing excusenicks.
There are those of us who see the war in Iraq as distinct from the fight against terrorism and believe that Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats. The efforts to provide a link between the war in Iraq and the broader anti-terror effort are unpersuasive.
Like I have said before, hatred is an all consuming thing. You really should be complaining about when we invaded France in 1944. We were at war with Germany, not France.
I am afraid nothing would be "persuasive," Mongo, simply because you and others don't want it to be part of the War on Terror. To admit it is necessary and part of the WoT would mean you might have to give credit once where credit is deserved.
Okay fizzi, you want more links? Reading the quoted words of a member of the commission isn't good enough?
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Iraq & Al Qaeda
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
No Question About It
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
How about a realistic alternative to redeploying?
How about WIN? "Redeploying" was tried before, at the behest of the anti-everything left. It went from "redeploy" to "abandon" and ended up costing upwards of many millions of Southeast Asians their lives.
Do you wish a repeat?
Lew:
Let me give you a repeat: in a recent press conference, President Bush acknowledge that the Americans found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's not me making the statement. It's not John Kerry, John Murtha, or any other porominent democrat making the statement. It is the inimitable George Dubya Bush, acknowledging that the American forces found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
That does put conservatives in something of a bind, doesn't it? They either agree with the President and drop the WDM claims, or they group the President with his detractors and call him a liar.
david,
It is obvious the President has moved on. The reason for the war became a mute point 5 seconds after the war started. As for calling the President a liar he did not lie. He presented the case for war as it was given to him by his advisors and the intelligence community. As it turned out the information was faulty however, that does not make the president a liar.
On the other hand the people who were calling the President a liar were in fact lying themselves. Those who believed the Presidents opponents were decieved.
David, you know yourself had Bush claimed finding those 500 and something WMDs, the left would have had a heyday over it.
We all admit they weren't the ones virtually the entire world said were there. Still, they were there and were supposed to have been destroyed.
Even here we have seen the left claim they never existed, they were all destroyed and on to we knew about them all the time.
We have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. Bush didn't. Given the events of 9/11 he would have been a total dereliction of duty to take some concrete steps to ensure what nearly the whole world said was there from falling into the hands of terrorists.
It still begs the question, since so many said they existed, where did they go during the six month long rush to war? Who has them now? If Saddam knew they didn't exist, why not just come cleana nd say so and allow inspections to show it?
If you feel there was no danger associated with the ones found, how many are you willing to store in your home?
Last week, the New York Times and CBS News conducted a poll. Now, I am certain that there are those who will dismiss all polls as inherently inaccurate, and others who will dismiss this particular poll because they dismiss both the newspaper and the television network. Others will insist that the figures have been deliberately skewed because these sources have such a ruthless political agenda that they will tell any lie necessary to fulfill that agenda, even though they both depend on consumer faith in their continuing integrity to sell their product. Be that as it may the results of the poll are chilling: a majority of American do not believe that there is any connection between the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
Recently, when asked if there was a connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, Mr. Bush acknowledged that there was no such connection.
Before the American troops invaded, during the build-up to the war, I questioned wehther this would be a manageable operation, and voice the fear that once in Iraq, the American forces could never extricate themselves. I warned that it would be a quagmire at least as bad as Vietnam.
Ever since the American military began its occupation of Iraq, the administration has continually defined the option as being only two: stay the course or cut and run. As the meltdown continues, I do hope that the American public will realize that this all-or-nothing thinking is irrational and self-defeating. As a nation, we have poured billions into efforts that are increasingly being shown as wasteful and ill-considered. We ahve lost more than 2,500 Americans dead and many, many more wounded, often horrifically. The number of Iraqis who have paid with their lives for our efforts has not even been counted with any accuracy. We have squandred the goodwill of much of the world, and turned ourselves from world leaders to world bullies. At home, this war has been the continuing excuse for divisive name-calling that has labelled any voice of dissent or disagreement as treasonous and cowardly.
Phil Ochs may have spoken early, but with chilling prescience when he said of America: "We were born in a revolution, and we died in a wasted war."
Post a Comment