Bush's Veteran's Day Speech: What did you think of it?

[haohmaru]

LAWL, let's try this again. THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE investigated the CIA reports and talked to the CIA, here's what the report (submitted on June 2004) had to say;

Yeah, except that I've been talking about the CIA reports and their influence, NOT the Senate Intelligence Subcommitees investigation from TWO FUCKING YEARS AFTER THE SENATE VOTED. I stand by what I've said, and proven, that the CIA said before the Senate cast their votes. It couldn't be stated in any plainer english than it was and how CLEARLY they believed that WMD's were a clear and present danger. Because the SIS investigated and found that a few years later that there really wasn't much evidence doesn't change the fact that the CIA reported that THERE WAS.

You should really consider reading the Senate Intelligence report, it's free and in .pdf form to d/l from the subcommittee website. Perhaps when you're finished digging YOUR foot out of YOUR mouth you might give it a gander.

And you should consider courses in remedial reading because I haven't argued for or against the SI report, I've merely stated (and accurately, I might add) that the CIA believed there were WMD's there, the Senate voted accordingly, and Bush acted accordingly. To say that there was some secret Bush agenda that controlled Congress, The Senate, The House, The FBI, and all other intelligence agencies of domestic and international significance in order to go to war makes Bush look a lot more intelligent and devious than he really is. I don't think the man is all that smart, and certainly not smart enough to devise an evil master plan with some hidden agenda to avenge his father. It's absolutely RIDICULOUS to place the entire burden of this in his lap. Equally, had the U.S. done nothing and a suitcase nuke exploded in Chicago in 2004 through a Saddam supported terrorist, you all would be blaming Bush for that as well and probably screaming at him for NOT invading Iraq. Bush is in a position where he can do nothing right and is a figurehead for our governmen't failures and the UN's failures. Period.

Go to Florida, declare yourself a Cuban Freedom Fighter then sit back and watch the cheques roll in for essentially doing nothing.

Okay, Mr. Ignoramus, except for that fact that thousands of Iraqi National Congress members died in an uprising in 1995. Were they "doing nothing" too? :P

You can't boil down the United States to such a simple statement. It's a great motto, but it's not really how the country works. Foreign policy is less decided by elected officials as it is by appointed ones and by interest groups. Those are the ones to blame. Trying to hoist the blame onto the American people as if they were a party to every phase of it is the kind of trick the neo-cons like to use. It's not the truth.

It's just as simple as trying to blame a single man. That's not the truth either and you know it.

And while we're at it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...raqdossier.pdf

(UK Says he has WMD's in 2002)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...q_Oct_2002.htm

(CIA says he has WMD's in 2002)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16118.htm

(State Dept notes glaring ommissions in U.N. document, implying they have WMD's)

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/...r_document.pdf

UN reports stating multiple points of evidence (overhead imagery, eyewitnesses, classified witnesses) that Iraq has mobile BioWeapons labs.

There's more, a lot more, but it's a lot easier to say it's all Bush's fault.

[mhcw]

Michael Moore was tasteless when he talked about the war at the Oscars. The conservatives were right about that.

Bush is far, far, far more tasteless for using Veteran's Day as an excuse to get on his soapbox and talk about bad intel, politicians who oppose him, and other such issues. He has every right to talk about those issues, but not during a speech that was supposed to be about honoring our veterans. Talk about spitting in their faces. "This day was supposed to be about you guys, but you know what, I think I'll talk about my own political issues instead with only the most tenuous connection to who I'm actually supposed to be talking about KTHX." I can't imagine anyone, liberal or conservative, who cares about our veterans who wouldn't find this in completely poor taste.

All of you who voted for Bush, owe the rest of us an apology.

[g0zen]

Yeah, except that I've been talking about the CIA reports and their influence, NOT the Senate Intelligence Subcommitees investigation from TWO FUCKING YEARS AFTER THE SENATE VOTED.

Read the fucking report. It goes into GREAT detail how the CIA briefed the President that their intelligence was shakey, and not concrete enough to justify war. Who made the decision to go ahead? Oh that's right your one true love, G.W. Bush, whom you seem to forget IS the President of the United States.

I stand by what I've said,

Okay.

and proven,

You haven't proven shit. All you've shown is what I knew a long time ago, that the justification was bullshit. However, your assertion that Bush was twiddling his thumbs and just got misled by the "evil, evil Clintonian CIA" is garbage. He had the whole layout, knew the the info wasn't concrete, and went ahead anyway because 'liberating' Iraq is part of the New American Century.

I also think it's cute how you love coming to defend G.W. Bush from all the little 'booboos' that happened to him, yet remained silent as Spo basically tries to blame Clinton for everything up to and including the 1918 Influenza epidemic and the fact that Nintendo lost the last console generation.

I've merely stated (and accurately, I might add)

Hardly.

It's absolutely RIDICULOUS to place the entire burden of this in his lap.

The entire burden? No, but a damn good share of it. The rest can go to Cheney.

Equally, had the U.S. done nothing and a suitcase nuke exploded in Chicago in 2004 through a Saddam supported terrorist, you all would be blaming Bush for that as well and probably screaming at him for NOT invading Iraq. Bush is in a position where he can do nothing right and is a figurehead for our governmen't failures and the UN's failures. Period.

This paragraph right here outlines just how fucking clueless you are. If Saddam had somehow gotten ahold of a suitcase bomb he wouldn't waste it on the US. He's not an idiot fundamentalist who craves suicide in the name of 'jyhad'. He's a dictator who wanted more power than he could get and got slapped down.

The idea that al-Queda and Saddam were ever in league is garbage, they never had any connection, the CIA told the Bush administration so. Yet..wait a minute...the administration told the public that Iraq had been a part of 9/11. OH MY GOD! Could this be...a pattern of the Bush White House manipulating or outright falsifying information to advance their foreign policy?!

Okay, Mr. Ignoramus, except for that fact that thousands of Iraqi National Congress members died in an uprising in 1995. Were they "doing nothing" too? :P

Yeah I'm sure you're real broken up about them, too. I mean, after all, IT'S YOUR FAULT TOO, right? You're to blame for every casualty of war, every illegal black-op, every unlawful detention and torture, right? I mean, we're ALL to blame for these crimes, so really, no one is to blame right? I mean, we can't call be punished. Yeah, you're right, this whole blaming society for the crimes of the individual is great, haoh!

All of you who voted for Bush, owe the rest of us an apology.

Shut up.

[SpoDaddy]

It was part of the containment strategy alongside the 'No-Fly Zone' and the UN sanctions, which were working.

Are you not aware that Saddam was using the Oil For Food program to rake in millions and millions of dollars thanks to some of our corrupt anti-war friends? There's France, but that's not suprising, Jaque Chirac would pay for the pleasure of selling himself, and lots of others but now it's come out that George Galloway (a guy that's going around protesting the war with Jane Fonda) was making money off Saddam. There's Cindy Sheehan, who's hatred of Jews and Israel surpasses even her respect for her dead son, there's Michael Moore making more money than anyone off the war, you've got a bunch of real winners over in that anti war crowd.

You can protest, smoke weed and listen to anti-war music all you want but that doesn't make this Vietnam, it just makes your life really meaningless.

[SpoDaddy]

The latest from Christopher Hitchens on the "Out of Iraq Now" crowd:

http://www.slate.com/id/2130883/?nav=fo

Nowhere To Go
Stop the taunting, and let's have a real debate about the Iraq war.
By Christopher Hitchens

So, Bill Clinton got it wrong as usual, by making a smarmy plea for a truce of civility from his Little Rock library redoubt. The Iraq debate does not need to become less rude or less intense. It needs to become much more bitter and much more polarized. As I never tire of saying, heat is not the antithesis of light but rather the source of it.

No, the problem with the Iraq confrontation, as fought "at home," is not its level of anger but its level of argument. After almost three years of combat, the standard of debate ought to have risen and to have become more serious and acute. Instead, it has slipped into a state of puerility. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, squeals about cowardice and suggests that those who differ are stabbing our boys in the back—and then tries to revise her remarks in the Congressional Record. This is to sink to exactly the same level as those who jeer that sympathizers of the intervention should "send"—as if they could—their own children, if they should happen to have any handy. Or even to the level of those who claim that anti-war criticism demoralizes "our men and women in uniform." I can't be absolutely sure of this, but the "men and women in uniform" whom I have met, and who have patrolled edgy slums and nasty borders, are unlikely to burst into tears when they hear that someone even in their home state doesn't think they can stand it. Let's try not to be silly.

For a while, it seemed possible that the sheer reality of battle in Iraq—a keystone state in which we would try the issue of democracy and federalism vs. fascism and jihadism—would simply winnow out the unserious arguments. Those who had jeered at the president for "trying to vindicate his daddy" would blush to recall what they had said, and those who spoke of imminent mushroom clouds would calm down a bit. Those who had fetishized the United Nations would have the grace to see that it had been corrupted and shamed, and those who pointed out that it had been corrupted and shamed would demand that it be reformed rather than overridden. Those who had wanted to lift the punitive sanctions on Iraq because they were so damaging to Iraqis could have allowed that the departure of Saddam was the price they would have to pay for the sanctions to be removed. Those in power who had once supported and armed Saddam might have had the decency to admit it. Those who said that it was impossible, by definition, to have an alliance between Saddamists and fundamentalists might care to notice what they had utterly failed to foresee.

Instead, we have mere taunting. "Liar, liar, pants on fire." "Terrorist sympathizer." It's certainly appalling that Michael Moore should be saying that the Iraqi "insurgents" are the moral equivalent of the minutemen, but my tax dollars don't go to support Moore. My tax dollars do go to pay the salary of Scott McLellan, who ought to be looking for other work after he accused the honorable but simple-minded Rep. Murtha of being a Michael Moore type.

I am not myself trying to split this difference. For reasons that I have explained at length elsewhere, I think that the continuation of the Saddam Hussein regime would have been even more dangerous than the Bush administration has ever claimed. I also think that that regime should have been removed many years before it actually was, which is why the Bush administration is right to remind people of exactly what Democrats used to say when they had the power to do that and did not use it. No, there are two absolutely crucial things that made me a supporter of regime change before Bush, and that will keep me that way whether he fights a competent war or not.

The first of these is the face, and the voice, of Iraqi and Kurdish democrats and secularists. Not only are these people looking at death every day, from the hysterical campaign of murder and sabotage that Baathists and Bin Ladenists mount every day, but they also have to fight a war within the war, against clerical factions and eager foreign-based forces from Turkey or Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia. On this, it is not possible to be morally or politically neutral. And, on this, much of the time at least, American force is exerted on the right side. It is the only force in the region, indeed, that places its bet on the victory and the values of the Iraqis who stand in line to vote. How appalling it would be, at just the moment when "the Arab street" (another dispelled figment that its amen corner should disown) has begun to turn against al-Qaida and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, if those voters should detect an American impulse to fold or "withdraw." A sense of history is more important than an eye to opinion polls or approval ratings. Consult the bankrupt Syrian Baathists if you doubt me.

But all right, let's stay with withdrawal. Withdraw to where, exactly? When Jeanette Rankin was speaking so powerfully on Capitol Hill against U.S. entry into World War I, or Sen. W.E. Borah and Charles Lindbergh were making the same earnest case about the remoteness from American concern of the tussles in Central and Eastern Europe in 1936 and 1940, it was possible to believe in the difference between "over here" and "over there." There is not now—as we have good reason to know from the London Underground to the Palestinian diaspora murdered in Amman to the no-go suburbs of France—any such distinction. Has the ludicrous and sinister President Jacques Chirac yet designed his "exit strategy" from the outskirts of Paris? Even Rep. Murtha glimpses his own double-standard futility, however dimly, when he calls for U.S. forces to be based just "over the horizon" in case of need. And what horizon, my dear congressman, might that be?

The atom bomb, observed Albert Einstein, "altered everything except the way we think." A globe-spanning war, declared and prosecuted against all Americans, all apostates, all Christians, all secularists, all Jews, all Hindus, and most Shiites, is not to be fought by first ceding Iraq and then seeing what happens "over the horizon." But to name the powerful enemies of jihad I have just mentioned is also to spell out some of the reasons why the barbarians will—and must—be defeated. If you prefer, of course, you can be bound in a nutshell and count yourself a king of infinite space and reduce this to the historic struggle between Lewis Libby and—was it Valerie Plame? The word "isolationist" at least used to describe something real, even "realistic." The current exit babble is illusory and comprehends neither of the above.

[haohmaru]

Read the fucking report. It goes into GREAT detail how the CIA briefed the President that their intelligence was shakey, and not concrete enough to justify war. Who made the decision to go ahead? Oh that's right your one true love, G.W. Bush, whom you seem to forget IS the President of the United States.

Congress made the same decision, chief.

You haven't proven shit. All you've shown is what I knew a long time ago, that the justification was bullshit. However, your assertion that Bush was twiddling his thumbs and just got misled by the "evil, evil Clintonian CIA" is garbage. He had the whole layout, knew the the info wasn't concrete, and went ahead anyway because 'liberating' Iraq is part of the New American Century.

Again, the Senate reached the same conclusion from the same information from the same sources. You can't effectively argue otherwise.

I also think it's cute how you love coming to defend G.W. Bush from all the little 'booboos' that happened to him, yet remained silent as Spo basically tries to blame Clinton for everything up to and including the 1918 Influenza epidemic and the fact that Nintendo lost the last console generation.

I could care less about Clinton or his decisions. That was 8 years ago, doesn't have anything to do with the title of this thread, and is partisan bullshit. I'm not here to argue Republican/Democrat nonsense.

The entire burden? No, but a damn good share of it. The rest can go to Cheney.

It's naive to not place any responsibility with Congress. If everything was as clearly evident as you say it is then WHY did they vote YES to go to WAR? They are responsible too. Period.

This paragraph right here outlines just how fucking clueless you are. If Saddam had somehow gotten ahold of a suitcase bomb he wouldn't waste it on the US. He's not an idiot fundamentalist who craves suicide in the name of 'jyhad'. He's a dictator who wanted more power than he could get and got slapped down.

The idea that al-Queda and Saddam were ever in league is garbage, they never had any connection, the CIA told the Bush administration so. Yet..wait a minute...the administration told the public that Iraq had been a part of 9/11. OH MY GOD! Could this be...a pattern of the Bush White House manipulating or outright falsifying information to advance their foreign policy?!

First of all, the statement was clearly a "what if" scenario. Second of all, Saddam did run a country that was a safe haven to many terrorists. Thirdly, I didn't say Saddam had the suitcase nuke, I said terrorists did and I certainly didn't specify "al qaeda" anywhere within my sentence. Don't act like it couldn't have happened. I'm merely saying that had something happened you would be all over Bush's ass how he did nothing to stop it and you know that THAT is true.

Yeah I'm sure you're real broken up about them, too. I mean, after all, IT'S YOUR FAULT TOO, right? You're to blame for every casualty of war, every illegal black-op, every unlawful detention and torture, right? I mean, we're ALL to blame for these crimes, so really, no one is to blame right? I mean, we can't call be punished. Yeah, you're right, this whole blaming society for the crimes of the individual is great, haoh!

It's certainly far less clueless than blaming one person, ignoring the fact that the U.S. public and the U.S. Congress supported the exact same decision, or implying that one person or person's cabinet could orchestrate a deception involving major countries and their intelligence, all U.S. intelligence agencies, and convincing the majority of Congress that was reading the same intelligence to vote for war.

That is really clueless.

[g0zen]

Second of all, Saddam did run a country that was a safe haven to many terrorists.

The only terrorists Saddam supported are the same ones that EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST EXCEPT ISRAEL SUPPORTS, the Palestinians.

Don't act like it couldn't have happened.

IT COULDN'T! You show me any inkling of evidence that could have led to something like that, ANYTHING. But, don't bother looking too hard because there isn't any.

Are you not aware that Saddam was using the Oil For Food program to rake in millions and millions of dollars thanks to some of our corrupt anti-war friends?

Oil for Food has nothing to do with WMDs.

George Galloway (a guy that's going around protesting the war with Jane Fonda) was making money off Saddam.

Galloway worked with the Iraqi Congress in exile in Britian. Just because your boy Hitchens, whose a patent liar that somehow considers himself the savior of all the Kurdish people, likes to slander Galloway routinely doesn't add any weight to his accusations.

There's Cindy Sheehan, who's hatred of Jews and Israel surpasses even her respect for her dead son,

LOL! The conservative smear machine is in full effect! Now, Cindy Sheehan isn't a mother who wants to protest a war her son died in, no she's some sort of violent anti-semite whose using her son's death as a catapult for her anti-zionist platform. Really, the right has no shame in attacking people's character with their lies.

there's Michael Moore making more money than anyone off the war,

Except Halliburton, whose repeatedly stolen vast sums of money from the government, the troops, and the American people.

You can protest, smoke weed and listen to anti-war music all you want but that doesn't make this Vietnam, it just makes your life really meaningless.

LOL, Spo I know you only say this stuff because you like your own voice and you get the best echo with your head up your ass.

[SpoDaddy]

I also think it's cute how you love coming to defend G.W. Bush from all the little 'booboos' that happened to him, yet remained silent as Spo basically tries to blame Clinton for everything up to and including the 1918 Influenza epidemic and the fact that Nintendo lost the last console generation.

I blame Clinton for gutting the CIA and standing pat while the storm grew during his administration, yes. It's funny that you throw in all that other stuff I "blame" him for, I'm not the one trying to pin everything (including hurricanes) on a president.

[SpoDaddy]

The only terrorists Saddam supported are the same ones that EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST EXCEPT ISRAEL SUPPORTS, the Palestinians.

Wrong. The Palestinians have been a convenient excuse for the entire middle east to pursue their anti-semitic agenda, and Saddam has harbored and funded several terrorists spanning the globe including Al Qaeda.

Oil for Food has nothing to do with WMDs.

Giving Saddam Hussein (a guy obsessed with stockpiling and playing with WMD's) a billion dollars illegally has nothing to do with WMD's?

Galloway worked with the Iraqi Congress in exile in Britian. Just because your boy Hitchens, whose a patent liar that somehow considers himself the savior of all the Kurdish people, likes to slander Galloway routinely doesn't add any weight to his accusations.

A bipartisan Senate signed off on a report after a year-long investigation that indicted Galloway and a french politician in the Oil For Food scandal. You're doing the same thing with Galloway that the hard left does with every left wing figure that gets exposed as slime: obfuscate the fact that they're slime by screaming non-stop about the right wing smear machine. This has nothing to do with Hitchens' personal dislike of Galloway (I'd question the judgement of anyone that didn't dislike George Galloway), and if you think Hitchens is a liar explain why. I've yet to see you quote or dispute anything I've posted by him.

LOL! The conservative smear machine is in full effect! Now, Cindy Sheehan isn't a mother who wants to protest a war her son died in, no she's some sort of violent anti-semite whose using her son's death as a catapult for her anti-zionist platform. Really, the right has no shame in attacking people's character with their lies.

Here we go again, that out of control conservative smear machine. Just because Cindy's a hypocrite (she already met with Bush and gushed over how warm and supportive he was) and an anti-semite (see her letter below; among her biggest supporters are David Duke and Pat Buchanan) doesn't mean we shouldn't respect her "moral superiority", right?.

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.

The right is shameless, to portray this woman as anti-Israel.

Except Halliburton, whose repeatedly stolen vast sums of money from the government, the troops, and the American people.

Back to the old Halliburton chant? As I've already said in this thread, Michael Moore owns Halliburton stock (he left that out of his movie) and Halliburton has only made a 2.4% profit margin off of their operations in Iraq. They're trying to sell off their division handling the Iraq contract, 2.4% is a joke and more could be made off interest in a bank account.

[g0zen]

Saddam has harbored and funded several terrorists spanning the globe including Al Qaeda.

Proof? None? I thought not.

Giving Saddam Hussein (a guy obsessed with stockpiling and playing with WMD's) a billion dollars illegally has nothing to do with WMD's?

Not when he couldn't get them and the evidence shows that he never rebuilt his stockpiles.

The right is shameless, to portray this woman as anti-Israel.

Being anti-Israeli domestic policy is not anti-semitic. There are a number of Jews who're anti-Israel.

They're trying to sell off their division handling the Iraq contract, 2.4% is a joke and more could be made off interest in a bank account.

Halliburton has already been hit with numerous lawsuits for their numerous frauds perpetrated in Iraq on the U.S. Armed Forces and the government. You can say whatever you want about Michael Moore's politics, his approach, etc., but you have NO evidence to say he has ever outright committed a crime on the level Halliburton has.