.jpg)
From the President's press conference on 8.9.07
"I recognize there's a debate here in America as to whether or not failure in Iraq would cause there to be more danger here in America. I strongly believe that's the case. It matters if the United States does not believe in the universality of freedom. It matters to the security of people here at home if we don't work to change the conditions that cause 19 kids to be lured onto airplanes to come and murder our citizens."
Would he please separate Iraq from 9/11.
51 comments:
He should try the "If I wave my arms around above my head real fast no one will even listen to what I am talking about" trick...I find myself so disappointed when I miss out on Lil' Bush saying "the war on terra" and "nucular".
He's even too dumb to know that we're not as dumb as he is.
Manipulation through fear...
The same hatred of America that caused 19 individuals to perform the acts of 9/11 still exist in Iraq---it is a common hatred of our freedoms and our way of life that fuels the terrorist agenda.
There is no need to seperate b/c they co exist and feed off one another.
9/11 was an act of Islamic terrorism. The war in Iraq is a battle in the war against Islamic terrorism. Regardless of one's political biases, they ARE connected.
Or would you prefer that 9/11 and similar terrorism be considered a "criminal act" (a la Bill Clinton) that should be adjudicated in court -- AFTER the fact?
SEMPER FI! I SAY KICK THERE ASS
It is so nice that you throw in a wonderful quote from our president every now and then. Where are the same wonderful quotes from the liberals who are running to take over his job? As your last poll showed most would vote for Fred (which you didn't comment on) we are getting tired of the liberal congress who hasn't done a thing but harrass the president and his cabinet for things the Clintons did while they were in office.
Barry...politics and religion in the same day? UNCLE.
3:58 - Surely you don't believe that Bush has done anything to aleviate that hatred of America outside of America??? He has only fueled the fire.
Wordkyle - The fact is that Iraq is a MUCH bigger threat to America now than it was before we invaded. Now, it has become a breeding ground for terrorists. Before, there was one terrorist - Saddam Hussein - & he terrorized his own people, not us. (Lucky us.)
You can't just conveniently forget that Bush said we were invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - nuclear & biological weapons. We found none, NONE, so he just continues to change the reason we are there.
The battle against terrorism & Bin Laden in Afghanistan was going well until we diverted most of our resources to Iraq. Now we have lost a great deal of ground there.
This presidency has been a huge disaster & some people refuse to see it. Fortunately, even many Republicans see that - they just can't openly talk of it.
4:18 - Your comment about Clinton is laughable - I am not going to spend time addressing that - you are beyond reason.
I yearn for the days when we had a keenly intelligent president in office. (I could care less about his problem keeping it zipped.)
Truth flies over the heads of liberal weenies.
He must hang on to 9/11 it's what got hime re elected. It is a convenient cover for his imperial presidency. He will announce victory on his way out the door and leave the next pres to clean up his mess. What I regret most about Bush, Rove, and Gonzales is what they have done to the term "Texan" I travel a great deal and foreign or domestic the question is the same. Are all of you like that?
Good points 3:46 - Bush is likely reacting to the demise of his brain.
Carl will be "roving" around to find another dumba$$ politician to rule.
The thing that really alarms me about this comment is his distorted perception of 9/11. Those 19 killers were not kids, I think they ranged in age from 19 to 33 or something like that. And how were they 'lured' onto those planes?
I believe more American Citizens have lost their lives in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. My heart goes out to each of the families and as a nation we now must insist that our brave young men and women be brought home. As I have said from the beginning a free Iraq will not end terrorism nor is it revenge for the horrific events on 9/11. The money spent on this senseless invasion should of been spent on homeland security--and by that I mean real security, not taking off your shoes at the airport. It is time for our President to quit saving face and start saving the lives of our military men and women by bringing them home.
WordBile, they weren't connected until Bushie connected them. He was out to get Saddam even before 9/11. Where have you been, watching Fox news?
The only Texan in that bunch, 5:19PM is Gonzales, and he is apparently born of illegal aliens. What a troop of miscreants. I wish all the idiots that elected Bushy TWICE would just rapture themselves to hell, take him and all his minion with them and get all this shiate over with.
Oh the comment about Clinton being keenly intellegent - could be some truth in that he screwed us like he did monica and got away with it.
I knew it!
Before I even opened the comments, I knew Word Kyle would be here reminding us to all to be AFRAID.
Hi Wordie!
5:19 I suspect Rove will be deep into his buddy Cornyn's campaign and he does love him some Gov. Good Hair.
4:49 -- Saddam Hussein's Iraq promoted terrorism, supported terrorists, and had the capacity to supply them with weapons. Given time, Iraq would have developed and distributed WMD. Iraq is NOT a bigger threat now than it was before. That's simply fatuousness.
You claim that "there was only ONE terrorist -- Saddam Hussein --" and then Liberals scream that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (which, btw, the Bush administration has never asserted.) How big a threat was Islamic terrorism as a whole in 2001? Answer: Big enough to topple the World Trade Center.
The best intelligence in 2003 indicated Iraq had WMD. Clinton's admin thought it; the UN thought it; leading Democrats thought it; the entire civilized nation thought it. To NOT believe Iraq had WMD in 2003 would have gone against all reason. Hindisight is always 20/20 (unless, as Liberal Democrats have done, one ignores Santayana's dictum .)
From the beginning (pre-war), Bush has loudly articulated three reasons for invading Iraq: WMD, Saddam Hussein's criminal mistreatment of his people, and Iraq's support of terrorism. Prior to the war, Hussein was given numerous chances to cooperate with international agencies and avoid war. Because of his experience in dealing with Clinton, Saddam considered the US threats empty.
Sooner or later someone was going to have to deal with Saddam Hussein. The UN embargo was corrupt and ineffective. Saddam Hussein would only have gotten stronger and better armed -- meaning the Islamic terrorist groups would also have become stonger and better armed, much more than they are today.
6:22 you hit the nail on the head. I cringe everytime I hear Bush refered to as a "Texan". Being born in Connecticut does not make you a Texan.
Bush found if he played the fear card he could split the nation and rein as he wished in the chaos.
The last Texas politician I heard say anything remotely intelligent about the "War on Terror" was Ron Paul.
Come on guys! barry thinks that slick willy did no wrong will he was the prez.
Most libs believe that if we raised taxes! the world would be a better place! Right libs? bigger gov, higher taxes fix everything right?
silly kids
TxSheehan, Act II of Helen Keller is about to start. Now get back onstage.
I just wish, hope, pray that good Wise county citizens could realistically think about the quagmire of Iraq rather than blindly following the dear leader bush. If anyone really believes his position, volunteer to serve, you will get thousands of dollars to make such a mistake.
Saddam terrorized his own people but he DID NOT support al Queida.
No matter how much you want it to be true, it's just not true. He did not want al Queida in Iraq.
Clinton, blah, blah, blah...
Wordpyle - I've got my fingers stickin' in my ears goin' "nanny, nanny boo boo - I'm not listening to you" - it's always the same old crapola from you. It's getting REAL old, and most folks know it's a pyle o' shiate. Give it up, or tell us how Bush should be dealing with ALL THE OTHER EVIL DOERS there are in the world, because we are all, for sure, REAL AFRAID. Saddam was not the only one. Now, sadly, most of the world holds Dumbya in the same low esteem as him and Kim Jong-il these days. I think they are right, and I am sorry all the idiots in the U.S. ELECTED THE STUPID BA$TARD TWICE.
Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists would not hesitate to kill your family or mine--including women and children--if they thought it would advance their cause of bringing down America. That is not political "fear" rhetoric---that is a fact. We, as Americans, should be engaged in debate about how to combat those who would try to end our way of life violently rather than be continually mired in debate about which political party has the right answers or has made the biggest mistakes. We need to get the solution to combating terrorism "right" as Americans---not as Democrats or Republicans.
Wordkyle-
I said that Saddam Hussein was the only terroist in Iraq, not the only terrorist anywhere.
4:18 - If you don't like Barry's blog, DON'T COME HERE; you can't tell him what he should post. He tells you by the title that he has a liberal viewpoint.
Find a post that fits your viewpoint or start your own; don't lecture BArry on what he should post.
First, if any of you think "Cowlward" is reading any of this, your nuts. Right now he is so far up Hannity's "uproar" he doesn't know if it is day or night.
Secondly, these people hold a grudge like no one in this country can believe. They still have killings between familiesbecause of what happened five genreations agao. To that end, they were still angry about the 1st Crusades 1000 years ago. And now, we have started another one.
And thirdly, any of you who think this is about terrorism/al queida/etc. need to go study history, specificly Genesis, as in OLD TESTAMENT! God said the children of Ishmael (those of modern Middle Eastern descent) would FOREVER be a waring people without peace. If Bush/Repubs. are truely believers in God and the Bible as they so readily, publicly confess, why did they go after these people? Did they think God via Moses was just kidding? Do they think just because someone wrote about it cir. 1500BC that it was not for real? There is so much inconsistency and idiocy connected with this whole discussion, it is unbelievable!
4:13 -
Who's ass are you going to kick? Where are they located? Is that the only place they're located? Can you kick the asses of every terrorist that hates US? How do you know when you have kicked every terrorist ass?
We're not fighting a country - we're fighting a mindset; kicking the ass of that mindset - not possible. In fact, trying to do that only makes them breed like rabbits. Wake up to the realities. This isn't Nazi Germany we're fighting.
For this fight, we need a president that can think; can think on multiple levels at the same time. Not happening now!
Wordkyle 7:04
Even the Bushies are no longer making the claim that you make in your first paragraph.
Why can't you let that go? It makes you seem stupid, & I know you are not stupid.
"Iraq did not support al Qaeda." -- WRONG
There is substantial evidence that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism with money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe.
It's not a big stretch to figure that some of that support went to either al Qaeda members or terrorists with close ties to al Qaeda.
9/11 was not an isolated incident. It was a link in the chain of terrorist attacks that were ignored for years.
Liberal Democrats decry the Iraq war, but offer absolutely no plan for protecting America. Their entire philosophy is to pretend that 9/11 never happened.
If Liberal Democrat policies prevail, and allow another terrorist attack on American soil, can you just say "Sorry, I was wrong" and make it all right?
The new Democrat policy: "Let America burn."
9:40 -- The telling point of your post is your anger over the elections. Florida 2000 made you all raving maniacs. Not the best endorsement for letting you control foreign policy.
Uncle.
LMAO! LOVE the link Wordy. You are SO right that sure is substantial.
I'm not going to look up the links to investigations done by our government and by bipartisan groups because I've provided them many times before. Some people are too far gone done the Rush hole... But you're entertaining as all get out!
He's an idiot. Sham election. A woman I work with, who is a self-proclaimed Republican, said she voted him to his second term, not becuase of his platform, but for his "religious values." What a f'ing moron she is! That's not what keeps our country running, honey.
Truth is that 9/11 had to be connected to Iraq, or Bush would have never stayed in office.
I also love the argument from the right, "How many attacks have we had since 9/11? None, that's all thanks to Bush." Ok. How many attacks on American soil did we have before 9/11? I guess we thank Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. for that. Just a bunch of false logic.
Does it ever seem the Billy Clinton years and the Georgie Bush years are much the same, only people of the opposite political factions are the ones yelling. 16 years of division (if not more, it's just that I can't remember more than 16 years at a time). What a waste.
Hey Think Forus,
We had several terrorist attacks on US soil before Bush... Several
I mean, who is calling who an idiot and using false logic?
Hate to pile on poor ole Pile-of-Words, but he continues to pose false premises and therefore draws invalid conclusions. His "If" statements being inaccurate, his "Then" conclusions are wrong. He attempts to put words or ideas forward for people he disagrees with then proceeds to correct his own misstatements (attributed to others). It has proved futile to debate with this intelligent but painfully misguided individual.
Reading the posts and checking the poll on when to get out or stay in Iraq, it appears independents and swing voters will decide the issue November 2008.
So much noise is coming from the right and the left, the mainstream is silent but will be the decider.
I seem to have agitated the fleas.
Lots of personal attacks, but no refutations of any of my points, which are, namely:
* Iraq is a battlefield in the war against terror.
* Saddam Hussein supported terrorism (sorry if TXS doesn't approve of the evidence; nonetheless, there it is.)
* Believing Iraq had WMD in 2003 was prudent, reasonable and near-universal.
* The Islamic terrorist attacks on 9/11 (and in 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2000) were not caused by Bush.
Also-
* I believe that a terrorist attack on an American city is almost inevitable.
* I believe that the actions of Liberal politicians, spineless Republicans and left-leaning media will hasten such an attack.
* Liberals will scream a lie loudly and repeatedly to convince others it's the truth.
* Liberals are used to bullying people with opposing thoughts into submission and absolutely despise anyone who contradicts the Loud Lie.
Wordkyle -
YOU: "agitated the fleas"?
Isn't that a personal attack? - I thought namecalling was above Your Rightness.
YOU: " * Liberals will scream a lie loudly and repeatedly to convince others it's the truth.
* Liberals are used to bullying people with opposing thoughts into submission and absolutely despise anyone who contradicts the Loud Lie. "
What you accuse liberals of doing is EXACTLY what you do on this blog.
YOU: " * Believing Iraq had WMD in 2003 was prudent, reasonable and near-universal. "
Let's remember now why the Bushies outed Valerie Plame as a CIA undercover agent (and Scooter Libby was CONVICTED of lying about it under oath) - Her journalist husband was writing about how the information the Bushies were using to JUSTIFY the invasion of Iraq was manufactured and incorrect.
True, most of us believed what Bushies were feeding us - they were good at it. WE've learned our lesson from that - Bush fooled me once about Iraq(shame on him), but he won't fool me twice (that would bring shame on me)
The "evidence" you sited was laughable & obvious propaganda. That is some source you got there.
(I know, I know, why do I even try to reason with Wordkyle?)
I took another look at the "substantial evidence" and LOL! There is nothing but opinion. Even the handy dandy chart that proves Saddam was funding terrorists was compiled from an opinion piece. There is absolutely no evidence, only opinion, wild speculation and propaganda all presented by a self described conservative.
There are, however, numerous, non partisan and bipartisan reports that prove Saddam had no links to al Queida. Even the CIA... Oh well, rational people already know all this. That's why there are only 25% left who buy the baloney.
TxSheehan, You need to start getting your facts from reliable sources and not from DailyKos. It would clear your thinking and allow you to be a more optimistic person. That pinging sound you hear is a BB rattling around in your brain pan.
Does anybody have a good meatloaf recipe?
First, my apologies to any fleas who I might have offended by comparing them to Liberal Democrats.
anon 917 - I refuse to let Liberals get away with their lies. You, for example, said "[Plame's] journalist husband was writing about how the information the Bushies were using to JUSTIFY the invasion of Iraq was manufactured and incorrect."
Actually, he accused them of exaggerating claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa. However, intelligence reports here and here seem to indicate that the intelligence was good.
So Wilson's claim was wrong and I refuse to let stand your implication that evidence was "manufactured and incorrect." Bush's assertion was correct and accurate.
Valerie Plame's identity was leaked by Richard Armitage, hardly a "Bushie."
As for the evidence, some samples of sources:
• Iraqi documents seized by the US government;
• A report from the Joint Center for Operational Analysis, part of the Department of Defense;
• A report from the U.S. State Department;
• A report from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
• An article in the Christian Science Monitor
...and many more.
Apparently your standards for proof drop considerably when it comes to accusations against Republicans, Bush in particular.
As I've said before, your way of thinking will get us all killed.
Wordkyle - You gave your "apologies to any fleas who I might have offended by comparing them to Liberal Democrats."
Stop the hate; you're getting really mean & offensive.
Attn 3:49:
WORDKYLE OFFENSIVE?! Have you read ANY of the other diatribes against Bush, the repubklicans and anyone who voted for them? I think one VOTER was called an f***ing moron... you liberals have spewed so much venom you should gag on it! Disagree with wordkyle if you want, but at least make some sense and try not to look so LIBERAL!!
anyway, I'm sorry I offended you... *sniff, sniff...
get real...
I hate to actually come out and say this, but I'm sure most everyone is finished reading this post so I'll get it in...just to make myself feel better by venting.
Why most men will not vote for Hilary...
When I go home every day, I hear about all the problems in my partner's world for that day. I am made to feel like I am responsible for those problems. Furthermore, if I don't show her that I care about her problems, I'm dead meat. Even worse, when I offer logical solutions to these problems, I am an arrogant ass that doesn't understand her problem.
This is when it really gets good... I am now responsible for all the problems in her world and the world in general. I am the cause of her sadness, low self-esteem, the wrinkles in her face... I mean everything... I must now either bend over and apologize or diea horrible death to gain forgiveness!
My partner, like so many other partner's in America, is much the same as Hilary Clinton. I'm not saying Hilary is not a good woman...I'm saying that I and many other men and women in this country are completely fed up with people bitching about problems and blaming other people for them.
I'm saying that as long as I hear bitching and blame, I will be turned off and tuned out...no matter what their sex, color, age, religion or political affliation. I'm saying that this is the very reason the majority of Americans could care less about our political process and the daily events that affect our nation. The only politics they want to know about is "What are you going to do for me?"
Public opinion...is opinion...our general public is ignorant. Let me tell you: Ignorance is bliss! Ignorance provides the mind with peace and tranquility. The clueless seem to be happier than I am... go figure... If the general public was given the information our President sees daily, 95% would not take the time to read it. And I cant's blame them!
A smart man once told me, "Only believe 10% of what you hear and half of what you see.". I find more peace in my life since I've applied his logic.
Done soapboxing,
Denney Crane
Your partner, he could probably do better than you.
I agree... if she were a man...
Post a Comment