Bush uses Veterans Day to accuse his critics of harming the troops.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

that response was one big insult.

I was referring to my last points, which I will post yet again, in the hope that you will respond in a sincere manner:

Congress didn't initiate the process of undertaking war in Iraq - it was done by the White House. Moreover, Congress didn't vote to go to war, they voted to authorize the use of force if SH did not comply with our demands (which he substantially did). It was stupid, but they did it. President Bush was the one who decided to go to war.

I never said the President was alone in the blame. That being said, why do you use the word "blame" if you think the war is a good idea? Shouldn't you be referring to "credit"?

I apologize to the extent I was personally insulting.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: moshquerade

way to go George. it's been too long for you to keep quiet about the baseless accusations Bush bashers spew out.
i hope this sets some of them straight....although some are hopeless.

What "baseless accusations" are you alluding to? Specifically, President Bush's speech was oriented toward the proposition that war protestors are hurting the war effort. How does that relate to "baseless accusations"?

I'm a veteran - I take it you're not. Do you think I shouldn't be free to speak my mind about the war?

first, i'd like to thank you for going to war for our country.

secondly i think Bush addressed a couple of misconceptions that i have seen stated many times by his adversaries
1. Bush is to blame for getting us into the war in Iraq
2. Bush knew all along that there were no WMD in Iraq
quote of Bush speech: "They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."


lastly, i take offense to saying i would like to censor your remarks about the war. i have alluded to no such thing.

ok, perhaps, you have never tried to censor anyone's remarks, but we're a little sensative about it due to people like pabster and many others on this board that have said that criticism of the War is anti-american and hurts the country. (God forbid we have a debate in a democracy.) So, if you have been unfairly accused of this, then sorry, but you have to admit that its a common accusation made by those that share similar views to you.

I'd also like to address point 2. Democrats commonly say that bush selectively looked at intelliegence to overstate the case for war in Iraq... not that he knew there were no WMDS. Those are two different accusations, the former being what most democrats and moderates have said, the latter being more of a fringe accusation. Bush is introuble because of what the mainstream accusations are, not the what the fringe elements say.

As for point 1, he is not soley to blame, but aside form saddam hussein, he is the most to blame. He is the commander and cheif. All the congress can do is autherize his use of force. Ultimately, the planning and how the war is carried out was his decision.

I personally, feel that we have to stay and finish the job now. My criticism's of him are that

A) He did a bad job planning and managing the war

B) I obviously cannot prove it, but I'm suspicious that he was very selective in the evidence he presented to the public for WMD's. There appears to be a lot of evidence that he disregarded as to Saddams capabilties and the lack of ties to terrorists.

But I'd say part A was my biggest gripe. This was suppose to be cheap and quick. If he had said up front it was going to be expensive and long, then at least we knew what we were getting into. If the public still felt the war was worth the cost, then he had a mandate.

 

[Moonbeam]

From the Congressional Record june 2, 2004. Congress did not have access to the same intelligence that Bush did:

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, it is not just that mistakes were made by American policymakers, and it is not just that Chalabi gave us bad information. The other part of the equation is that the ideologues in the civilian leadership, in the Pentagon and in the White House simplified, distorted, took information and twisted it in such a way as to persuade the Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that we needed to invade to keep that part of the world and this country safe from attack.

Let us not forget the fact that the intelligence information being given to the White House in the fall of 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency report of September, 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate of October, 2002, was not available to the three of us at that time when we had to vote but was made available to us 6 or 7 months later. Those intelligence reports given to the White House were replete with uncertainty and caveats about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Now, they were wrong apparently to even think they might have been there, although we do know Saddam Hussein had them in the 1980s. They were wrong to conclude that he probably had them, but the reports were saying we think he has these weapons of mass destruction. He probably has them. We have been told he has them.

None of that uncertainty was passed on to the Congress in public statements or private briefings that we all attended, or to the American people in the fall of 2002 when we were asked to vote on the war authority. We were told with complete certainty that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we had to go get them.

In fact, the one member of the administration who had the most credibility in my opinion, Colin Powell, repeated this didactic approach, these statements with complete certainty, 4 or 5 months later in February or March of 2003 when he spoke to the U.N. He identified where the weapons were. He showed us pictures. He told us how much they weighed. He has 500 pounds over here; he has such and such over there. They talked about those two mobile chemical labs on flatbed trucks. Colin Powell assured the United Nations and all of the world that these things existed. They did not.

The intelligence they were basing these statements on was full of uncertainties. They deceived us. They led us to war with deceptions, and we have to hold them accountable for that. It is not just the mistakes. It is not just Chalabi's lies. It is the fact that some in the Bush administration were willing to twist that information, and this
goes to the President himself, to get us to go to war.

Link

The notion that the Congress acted on the same intel as the admin is another Republican lie. The war in Iraq is A PNAC dream invented (coincidently?) by pro Israeli American Jews.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Makes perfect sense.

The enemy thrives on people like yourself. They love to see the division amongst Americans and the possibility that our resolve might weaken. That's exactly what they want and they enjoy watching it.

this one thinks that his crystal ball is telling him something

 

[zendari]

President Bush's Job Approval Rating among Veterans is at 60%. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans will do something special to celebrate this holiday.

Text