Bush Attacks Democrats

Zarn said:
It doesn't make it right to just complain. You don't have to be in power to have an idea.
Ha ha...this is American politics. Ideas are for the bloggers now.

It doesn't matter how much power they have. They have to stop reacting and start setting their own agenda.
I think I've heard they were taking their time to come up with one. No, wait, sorry, it was a slogan for the 2006 elections. My bad!

Neither party has much of an agenda now. I wonder what that would mean for our future.
 
zjl56 said:
It seems perfectly natural for Bush to do this. I don't see why it is so terrible to defend himself. Many in the Democratic Party have ranted continously for years. So now that he critizizes others he is doing something terribly wrong.

He can "defend" himself as much as he likes. The problem is his "defense" is merely lying to cover up past lies.* Democrats (and Republicans who aren't total slaves of their party interest) will continue to point out Bush's lies and deceptions. If you're getting tired of how often we have to do this, let me suggest that we are not the ones most directly to blame :mischief:

*The two lies being told here are specifically 1) "Democrats got the same intelligence as the President" - that's blatantly false as discussed above - and 2) "The Senate investigation looked into whether intelligence was manipulated" - that was not part of their mandate, that is what the currently Republican-stonewalled Phase II of the investigation is supposed to look at.
 
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticise my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,"

This is just spectacular given the shift of American perception of the Iraq war. With the release of downing street memo, de-classifcation of WMD intell, the ongoing plame-gate investigation. More people speaking out such as Powell. Most recent is chalabi visiting washington.

Come on America who you're gonna believe your own eyes and ears or what the President says ?
 
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticise my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,"

I have to agree on this point. While there may have been many who didn't believe, or say now they didn't believe, as someone who was already in the Middle East and served with military personnel from many countries (including France & Germany) while conducting operations in Afghanistan, there was no argument between us about whether Saddam had WMD, all believed he had them or could easily restart his programs. The argument was whether it was worth going to war. Most of the European military personnel still thought no even if he had Nukes as they thought containment worked.
 
The Yankee said:
Ha ha...this is American politics. Ideas are for the bloggers now.

I think I've heard they were taking their time to come up with one. No, wait, sorry, it was a slogan for the 2006 elections. My bad!

Neither party has much of an agenda now. I wonder what that would mean for our future.

I know. That is why I'm not upset.

Our future? I don't know about you, but I'll live.
 
Bush didn't say anything wrong in that speech - to say he is attacking all Democrats is a stretch. I can however - remember the DNC leader Howard Dean saying "most Republicans have never done an honest day's work in their lives". I might be a little more swayed by the OP if the original poster was also objecting to statements like that too....
 
CivGeneral said:
I cant beleve how low Bush stooped. I would not be supprised if his approval ratings take a nose dive after this.

I don't think his approval ratings will have any effect from this. Nothing substantial has actually happened.

I guess people have a hard time believing that stupidity as immense as Bush's can exist in a president. People seem to more readily believe in a liar than an idiot.
 
Nanocyborgasm said:
I guess people have a hard time believing that stupidity as immense as Bush's can exist in a president. People seem to more readily believe in a liar than an idiot.
And more readily believe an idiot than an intellectual.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Actually, he told two lies in three paragraphs of text. So, yeah, by Bush standards he's keeping his nose a little cleaner, but still.

Name them.
 
Sure :)

Here are the three paragraphs I spoke of, from the official White House transcript. The lies are bolded.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

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. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

Lie #1: The bipartisan Senate investigation never actually investigated whether administration officials misused (=manipulated) intelligence to build a knowingly false case for war. That investigation is known as Phase II and it was being stonewalled by the Republican-controlled Senate until Harry Reid took it into closed session. When Bush says that this investigation has already taken place and it has cleared his administration of wrongdoing, he is lying with full knowledge. Other Republicans (like Senator McCain) have taken to telling half-falsehoods like "I asked all the analysts whether they felt political pressure, all of them said no." That isn't the point at all: Phase II of the investigation will look into WHAT USE was made of the intelligence provided by analysts to the administration - what was cherry picked, what was discarded? Was there a deliberate intent to mislead and to build a false case for war?

Of course, if you've been paying attention to this war, and names and phrases like "Stephen Hadley" and "White House Iraq Group" are not totally new to you, you already know the answer to those questions. ;)

Lie # 2: allow me to quote myself, earlier in this thread:

All intelligence goes through the White House, and the White House briefs the Senate. The NIE - National Intelligence Estimate - which Bush made available to the Senators THREE days before the Iraq vote had not only suffered from Administration manipulation in terms of what intel was included, but the "cautionary" section which disagreed with the Bush stand had been excised from the public version of the report.

The comeback that "Democrats had the same intelligence as the Administration" is not only politically foolish for Bush to make, it's also flat out wrong.
 
Oh and let me add that no Senator ever voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power, which makes that second lie twofold. They all voted to allow the use of force to bluff the weapons inspectors back in to COMPLETE THE JOB from 1998.

If Bush had been sincere in his request for weapons inspection, instead of using it as a weak excuse for war, we would never have invaded Iraq. The weapons inspectors would have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, observers would've been installed to keep an eye on Saddam and make sure he didn't restart his programs, and we would not be 200 billion and two thousand lives in the hole.

The responsibility for this war lies squarely with the President and his party. His lame attempts to pass the buck (am I surprised? No, this is Bush) will not pass the smell test with the public.
 
Regarding alleged lie #1: Some democrats were using the bipartisan commision to imply that manipulation had been done, which was misleading in itself. Saying they hadn't found anything, which they didn't really research, was in response to that.

Regarding alleged lie #2: If he passed the same intelligence, then no lie. Don't know what he passed, so can't comment. You proposition is only conjecture that he withheld information.

Regarding Sentator votes: Are you kidding? It was obvious he would use the force if Saddam didn't comply 100%. Did you actually read the authorization that listed over a dozen reasons for the use of force.

Bush is not trying to pass the buck. He is simply saying it is disingenuous to change history, which it is and many Senators are trying to distance themselves from their votes. You are correct that the blame of the war lies completely with the President. (I disagree on his party; it is on him.)

Bush messed up in many ways, but for his political opponents to lay false claims now when they were saying different things back then is wrong.
 
A'AbarachAmadan said:
Regarding alleged lie #2: If he passed the same intelligence, then no lie. Don't know what he passed, so can't comment. You proposition is only conjecture that he withheld information.

Thats fine given that some 86% believe the current Plame-gate affair is of vital importance.

But still some 41% of Americans believed that intell was to shoulder to blame for the WMD bebacle. Despite mouning evidence otherwise Just recently declassified information showed that the "links" between alqeda and saddam provided by the "only" source came with the disclaminer information is not to be relied on. That the source was lying. Yet they used it anyway.

Oh well.
 
Black_Hole said:
How dare Bush defend himself, I thought the President couldn't do that...
It's no problem, just so long as I can criticize him with out being called unpatriotic or unamerican.:mad:
 
Folks you are all missing the point. Bush does everything for a reason and he is far smarter than any of you give him credit for.

His numbers will go up.

This is the turn around for next years elections...its not a coincendence that this speech came right after the Nov elections.

Bush is by far not the "worst president ever". Home ownership is at a record high and that is a very good thing. The economy is doing very well, even in the light of the war and hurricanes and such. Unemployment is way down, unlike in other countries. People will remember all this come election time in Nov 06...people vote their pocket books and if the economy is still doing well or better then the republicans will win again.

There are many more issues than just the war. Plus, when you see crowds of people in Amman Jordan not protesting the US but calling for the death of Al Zarqari (sp?) you cant help but think that yeah, we are winning this war on terror.

As for all the Bush lied (tm) crapola...look...the whole friggin world thought Iraq had WMDs. And considering the state of our intel services, I highly doubt that Bush was the only person in the world who knew Saddam didnt have WMD. Give me a break. Many people forget that some WMDs were actually found; Artillery shells containing sarin gas for starters but since there were only 20 shells total, it was downplayed in the press. We also found over a metric ton of enriched uranium..but oh wait thats no big deal either eh?

Bottom line. People who hate Bush will not listen to logical arguement or ever admit it when they are wrong. With Howard Dean (YAAAARRRRR) being the democrat poster child what do you expect?
 
We're winning because Jordanians are seriously ticked off that a Jordanian terrorist leader likely played a role in blowing up many Jordanians in Jordan? What happened to not fighting them on our soils?

Bush does things for a reason, but they're not necessarily good reasons.

The speech was specifically done on Veterans' Day. If it had anything to do with the elections, having it on November 9 would suffice. It's just Reason #252b that's been trotted out there in defense. And yet, the numbers are going down...people aren't buying it anymore.

I suspect 2006 will be one bloody election.

BTW, those shells were from the Iraq-Iran War. Why didn't we bother to take him out in 1988? Or in 1991 for that matter?
 
BTW, those shells were from the Iraq-Iran War. Why didn't we bother to take him out in 1988? Or in 1991 for that matter?

At least you admit the shells were there and thats a start. Personally, I think we should have taken him out in 1991 and it was a mistake to not do so.
 
I'd rather we did that back then too. At least then we had a lot more support. There were rebellions in most of Iraq's provinces after the Gulf War. They wanted our backup. We didn't show.
 
Back
Top Bottom