President Bush’s “war on terror” speech
As the President rightly asserted, “Iraq’s not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us,” referring to the fact that America was not in Iraq when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and New York and Washington in 2001. This is an obvious statement and should need no clarification. Yet, for the benefit of the Democrats, it is necessary to elucidate such facts. The enemy has disclosed its sinister plot from the very beginning, yet some still don’t get it.
This letter has not been edited.
"... referring to the fact that America was not in Iraq when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and New York and Washington in 2001. "
And how many of those attacks originated from Iraq?
Posted by CL on July 27, 2007 02:12 PM"...brilliant illustration of why winning in Iraq is imperative in defeating al Qaeda in Iraq."
The Stuckey drivel machine is in high gear again. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there & THEY ARE THERE BECAUSE WE ARE, not the other way round.
And it's self evident that terrorism is a threat around the world. Does that mean we have to make our troops sitting ducks for these fanatics in Iraq?
And using the words "Bush" and "brilliant" in the same sentence is a recipe for instant nausea - or screams of laughter.
Does anyone know what point- if any - this guy is actually trying to make?
Posted by drew on July 27, 2007 02:16 PMKeep sucking, Briana.
Posted by on July 27, 2007 02:22 PMBrian just wanted an excuse to his new word of the day "elucidate".
If we made Iraq the 51st state and turned it into a little Utah, the terrorists who hate us and plan to hurt us would just melt away?
No matter what happens iln Iraq, our enemies are not going to give up.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 27, 2007 02:46 PMWe're not in Iraq because of 9/11. We are in Iraq to secure corporate profits. I hate socialism and appreciate honest capitalism. But, when honest capitalism becomes fascism, as we now have in the US, everything traditional gets thrown out the window and the citizens bear the burden. Every time you read a news article that talks about Islamic terrorism, substitute Corporate for Islamic and see if the story changes.
Posted by Randall P McMurphy on July 27, 2007 02:48 PMSharon--
"If we made Iraq the 51st state and turned it into a little Utah, the terrorists who hate us and plan to hurt us would just melt away?"
Only if we send all the Mormons and their magic underwear over there.
Posted by Mitt for Governor of New Utah! on July 27, 2007 02:51 PMToo bad Bush is too timid to speak in front of the general public anymore rather than hand-selected audiences. Who knows, there might be some things that this administration says is true. Is it 2008 yet?
Posted by on July 27, 2007 02:56 PMC'mon,guys,let's get real about this Iraq business.There's no way we can climb into the DeLorean,take it to 88 MPH,go back in time and make it all not happen.We're stuck with things as they are.What we can all do as true citizens of the world is to atone for our incredible hubris by putting the enemy's needs AHEAD of our own.They need to get THEIR soldiers home,and we should use every military resource to help them do just that.
Posted by Jimminy on July 27, 2007 02:58 PMAwww, yes, There was no al-queda in Iraq.... There are al-queda in every other country and 10 in Antarctica, but not a single one in Iraq. Amazing? isn't it. That the one country on the planet without an Al-queda cell happens to be the one that we went after.
It also amazes me that in the 21 resons for the war, Al-queda is never mentioned.
And oh yeah, the Corporate Fascism angle! you betcha, Corps are just making billions over there by taking all that oil and dumping it on the market.... Oh wait, that hasn't happened. Where are the damned corporate fascists? I think someone forgot to mention this to them. Also, considering that corporate and fascism are opposite ends of the political spectrum, I find that to be kind of a silly combo. kind of like conservative communist.
We do need to get their soldiers home... to allah.
Hey Moron dravur, here's a newsflash,
Saddam was a SECULAR, BAATHIST dictator, who allowed no extremist religious organizations in Iraq, never mind Al Qaeda. But if you bothered to actually pick up a book at some point in your life you'd know that.
you wingnuts never met a fact that you wouldn't play fast & loose with, did you?
it's one thing to be stupid, but when you actually swallow the crap that this psycho regime puts out on a weekly basis, that's really disturbing.
Posted by drew on July 27, 2007 03:43 PMThanks Brian. Bush has given a number of great speeches. Too bad so many people that criticize his speaking skills hate him so much they can't listen to them.
Posted by DNA on July 27, 2007 03:52 PMIraq is such a mess it is now a damned if the US withdrawals and damned if the US does not withdrawal.
Posted by Sean on July 27, 2007 04:28 PMI've listened to Bush over and over and over and over and over and......
Posted by Stan B on July 27, 2007 04:31 PMHey look, it's the talking parrot named drew.
Sure wish somebody would change the station so he'd quit getting all his talking points from daily kos, moveon and mediamatters.
He'll repeat anything that flies in one side of his head and out the other.
Parental warning - Like other children here, drews rants may contain fowl language and misrepresention of facts. Your discretion is strongly advised.
Posted by KW on July 27, 2007 04:37 PMHey name-calling drew,
Saddam's relationship with Islam was entirely a matter of political expediency. Sure, when he needed to cozy up to countries like France and Germany for weapons and money to finance his pointless war with Iran, for example, then yeah, he was a "secularist." When he needed support from the Arab League, or to schmooze Arab nations uncomfortable with his bids for regional hegemony, then it was all Allah, all the time.
So he allowed no extremist religious organizations in Iraq? Goes without saying, 'cause he outlawed pretty much ANY organization that might threaten his chokehold on power. See, that's what dictators do. So your point is, well, pointless.
Now I don't know what Saddam confided to you before he got the rope, but we do know that he was a demonstrated threat to his neighbors, a sponsor of anti-Western terrorism, and that he actively sought to acquire nuclear and chemical WMD's and in fact employed the latter against his own civilian population.
But I'm wasting precious keystrokes with you here, aren't I? When you yammer about "the crap that this psycho regime puts out on a weekly basis" while taking a genocidal dictator at his word and implying that people who don't share your inside-out worldview must be illiterate morons, that's...(As you would say) really disturbing. Well, no...Actually it's just juvenile.
Kevin, please do not forget Sadam's boozing and schmoozing with the Reagen administration and the infamous photo of Sadam shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld.
Oh yes and please do not forget that the gassing of the Kurds would not have bee possible without Sadam's ability to access US companies. And who can forget the aid the US gave Iraq and Iran that enabled that war to stretch on four eight years.
The old Gipper sure did a disservice to this country by supporting that tyrant. Well he did a lot of disservices to this country, but I will just bring this one up.
I hope I did not cause any heart attacks by speaking ill of St. Reagan
Kevin on July 27, 2007 04:39 PM turns history on its head, or at least explains it through a mouth of mashed potatoes.
Iraq's war against Iran wasn't pointless as far as America was concerned -- it was deemed strategically essential, which is why we supported Saddam's efforts, including the provision of weapons, money, and yes, WMD in the form of poison gas. Back in the day, we -wanted- a secular state to counter-balance the fundamentalist Arabs in the region. It was the geopolitical approach to foreign policy that America has followed for most of its history, for better or worse. We've supported other dictators besides Saddam in the past, and likely we'll do it again in our lifetimes. But we'll have our hands full for a while because -we- removed that secular counter-balance without any clear understanding of what would happen or competent plan to provide an alternative means for stability in the region. The justifications circa 2003 that you cite are feeble retreads that have long since been discredited...I'm surprised anyone actually clings to them anymore. Even the neocons have moved on from those talking points.
Posted by on July 27, 2007 04:59 PMBush has given a number of great speeches. Too bad so many people that criticize his speaking skills hate him so much they can't listen to them.
Acutally, most Americans can't listen to Bush's speeches, great or not, because they are not open to the public. Why is Bush so scared of America's citizens?
Posted by on July 27, 2007 05:04 PM"Thanks Brian. Bush has given a number of great speeches. Too bad so many people that criticize his speaking skills hate him so much they can't listen to them.
Posted by DNA on July 27, 2007 03:52 PM"
Good Lord, how juvenile!! What the hell difference does it make how good his speech writers are? Did you think that they are so good that his speeches are killing terrorists? What we need are results, not good speeches.
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 06:35 PMThe only speech I would like to hear from W is a farewell speech and an appology for the lives he and his cronies have squandered.
He should really cut and run before he's tarred and feathered.
But he won't, as he's not that smart.
Posted by dmz on July 27, 2007 07:24 PMKW:
"Parental warning - Like other children here, drews rants may contain fowl language and misrepresention of facts. Your discretion is strongly advised."
KW, you sound jealous!
Posted by CL on July 27, 2007 07:58 PMNo CL, that would be a misrepresentation, in and of itself.
Great example though, thanks!
Posted by KW on July 28, 2007 06:59 AMI wrote:
KW:
"Parental warning - Like other children here, drews rants may contain fowl language and misrepresention of facts. Your discretion is strongly advised."
KW, you sound jealous!
KL:
"No CL, that would be a misrepresentation, in and of itself."
How so?
Your seeming jealousy is a personal perception and thus impossible for you to determine that it was misrepresented.
Your misrepresentation of "facts" has been demonstrated several times. Here's another example:
On June 28, 2007 05:17 PM on this thread:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/06/climate_change_50.html
you wrote:
"And glaciers are also growing in France? How can this be?"citing this article: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD007407.shtml But the article ("Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change") does not say glaciers are growing in France but does say:
"A comparison between these results and recent accumulation observations, together with the strong relationship between valley precipitation and snow accumulation, suggests that surface accumulation rates did not change significantly over the entire 20th century. Moreover, the small ice thickness changes, less than 3 m on the average, observed at Mont Blanc and Dôme du Goûter between 1905 and 2005 clearly reveal that these high-elevation glaciated areas have not been significantly affected by climate change over the last 100 years."
It does not say whether the changes were increases or decreases - you blatently misrepresented the contents of of the article you cited.
So there you you have it. Documentation supporting my post while your post (once again) lacks any factual backing.
Posted by CL on July 28, 2007 08:34 AMBrian, thanks for your little recap of history. You and the decider seem to have forgotten about St. Ronnie's experience with terrorists (Al Queda) in Lebanon.
Remember when the barracks were attacked? A suicide bomber overran the meager defenses, the guards with unloaded weapons unable to stop the explosive laden truck, and the devastation to the Marines put Reagan in a position to cut and run.
Funny how no Reagan conservatives bring up this humiliation, nor suggest our current decider do the same.
Funny how you don't remember that Clinton's justice department found the '93 WTC bombers and convicted them, using law enforcement and courts to do so, a tactic post 911 neocons find quaint.
Posted by Holy Reality on July 28, 2007 09:31 AMI feel compelled to once more point out that the word "hate", with reference to domestic politics , usually does not appear until some wingnut -bereft of any other explanation for dissent and disagreement with the wrongheaded policies of the current maladministration finds it necessary to inject the emotion with which they are obviously well acquainted.
I know of no one who "hates" our pretzeldunce. I know lots of people who "hate" what he and his mindless bootlicks have done to the country, and who think george the epitome of arrogant ignorance, corruption, and thoughtless sociopathology. Their contempt and disgust knows no bounds but the frightwingshriekers devoid of any response for their demigod's incompetence have elevated every expression of disagreement to the level of "hatred'. I'd say it says a lot more about them than it does about those they tar with that brush.
I'm greatly amused by the poster above who castigates another for deriving all their opinions from sources that he,I'm sure, deems "liberal". What that poster, in the usual irony deficient state of the typical wingnut doesn't seem to realize, is that their post is nothing more than a mindless regurgitation of received "wisdom" from the likes of blowhardbillowlielly, yawn spinsannity, the savage weiner, and oxyrush limpball. Nothing new there.
Posted by davis x machina on July 28, 2007 10:07 AMWhen Brian gets published there's no need to morph; he is in heaven over response to his utterances: Go for it, my boy: I will defend to the death your right to utter, though your utterances seldom take root; however, they provide me with augmenting as follows:
Deicide Corner: Franklin Graham with his 20,000 ambassadors for Christ is on indefinite hold until Bush’s policy has killed off most of the opposition and Graham can enter Iraq and turn it into a Christian (Taliban)nation: "Go forth and teach all nations."
Posted by Richard Grimes, deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of Freethought Today on July 28, 2007 01:10 PMdavis x machina, love that screen name.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 28, 2007 04:55 PMdavis x
Grow up you blathering idiot.
Everytime that SOB opens his mouth another lie comes out of it. How many times do you have to listen to his lies before you get the message that he dosen't care about people, anwhere, anytime, anyplace. Impeachment is the only answer Start with Cheney first, the real monster in this administration, then go after the idiot in the white house.
Posted by Bush watch on July 28, 2007 11:16 PMNot that it makes the slightest bit of difference, of course; but a bit of analogy - about as valid as any I've seen so far in this discussion over the last few months - might serve to amuse - or outrage, as the case may be - both sides.
When looking for answers to the questions of why we are in Iraq, and what more we have to do there to bring about that wonderful Bushite fantasy of “bringing freedom and democracy” to the country, one might be minded to take a look at things a bit closer to home. Perhaps it is time to consider that blighted, benighted, and backwards blot on Western civilization, the Third World Country called, Ireland.
Here we find the illiterate, uncivilized, and quarrelsome tribes engaged in an endless round of mayhem and slaughter between two factions, or cults, of the Western Religion; i.e., the Bookworshipers and the adherents to the manifold superstitions of Romanism. The causes behind this mindless tribal feuding lie back several Centuries, when the Romanists claimed that their Grand-Panjandrum-Poobah-Pope, as “feudal suzerain” – i.e. political/governmental overlord, as well as religious Boss of Bosses – had the right to choose, and enthrone, the High King – as well as such little Kinglets as each tribe might have – while the Bookworshipers claimed that the High King, as well as the Kinglets, should be chosen by the tribes themselves, from among the offspring of the hereditary tribal families. An additional cause comes from the Romanist position – established in the Treaty that ended the Hundred Years War – that whoever be the Prince, his was the religion; and the Bookworshipers were to be persecuted wherever a Romanist Kinglet, or religious Poobah, held sway. While on the other hand, the Bookworshipers just as enthusiastically embraced the position of their right to persecute Romanists wherever a Kinglet, or book banging Preacher, of theirs was local territorial boss.
Since Ireland has no significant mineral resources; little or nothing in the way of industry, except distilleries; and an agriculture principally given over to pig raising and potato growing, one of the very few activities available to the majority of the peasants is getting drunk, and fighting. (Indeed, one author summed it up by saying: “The Irish, whose only other passion is hate”.) So a good fight between Bookworshipers and Romanists soon became the raison d’etre for the Irish peasants. With the invention of greater explosives than old fashioned gunpowder, the mayhem and slaughter became increasingly noticeable, as well as increasingly worrisome to the civilized nations of Europe, where the peasants of both sides sought aid and support.
One of the civilized nations, England, actually sent an army into Ireland, with the hopes of bringing about some kind of peaceful resolution to the conflict, as well as attempting to establish some form of stable government in the island. That happened about 600, or so, years ago. And, some 600, or so, years later, the English are still there. And the Bookworshipers and Romanists are still killing each other off with great glee; the religious leaders on both sides having become more and more firmly entrenched in the position of being, or becoming, the “final winners” of the ensuing bloodbaths; and with the English forces and civilian aides added to the list of targets for continuing mayhem and murder as a sort of bonus into the bargain of a good old drunken brawl.
One does have to wonder, sometimes, about the situation. If the English, in 600, or more, years have not yet succeeded in “bringing freedom and democracy” to the blighted, benighted, and backward blot on Western civilization, the Third World Country of Ireland, how long will it take the United States to bring “freedom and democracy” to the warring tribes of Iraq? And, at what cost in lives of Americans?
Hey Brian have you been in la-la land all your life? Bush gives all his speechs such as the one you referred to, to selected audiences. He cannot stand dissent and there for anyone who may not agree with him will not be allowed in. I wouldn't go if I could, because they are all the same. All BS and Spin. Why don't you get a life?
Posted by A True American on July 29, 2007 08:52 PMCL - Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
When you read "suggests that surface accumulation rates did not change significantly" you interpret that to mean there wasn't any growth at all.
Furthermore you cherry picked one sentence out of the entire article that was describing the actual growth of those glaciers.
I don't have the time to go reresearch the article I posted (2 months ago???) way back when but it apparently wouldn't matter because you would scan the article not for information, but rather to locate and attack any miniscule portion you can twist into obscurity.
But since your a bleeding heart liberal I'm told we should forgive you.
Posted by KW on July 30, 2007 09:02 AMI suspect that, as is usual with wingnuts, the poster so brave as to anonymously advise me to grow up is taking as evidence of my immaturity my unwillingness to properly genuflect to commander codpiece and his general staff of dunces.Sorry, sir or madame I did a good share of growing up on a walking tour of the sun and fun capitol of southeast Asia some 40 years ago while the texas souffle (google this phrase-it's a wonderful story) was ostensibly protecting the airspace over the lone star state.
Posted by davis x machina on July 30, 2007 09:44 AMKW:
"When you read "suggests that surface accumulation rates did not change significantly" you interpret that to mean there wasn't any growth at all."
There you go making misrepresentations again. I explicitly wrote:
"It does not say whether the changes were increases or decreases"
See - I never wrote that there wasn't any growth at all and made no such assumption. You, on the other hand, wrote that:
"And glaciers are also growing in France"
No matter how you try to twist it, your making stuff up (again) is right there in plain daylight for all to see.
"Furthermore you cherry picked one sentence out of the entire article that was describing the actual growth of those glaciers.I don't have the time to go reresearch the article I posted (2 months ago???) way back when but it apparently wouldn't matter because you would scan the article not for information, but rather to locate and attack any miniscule portion you can twist into obscurity."
I didn't cherry pick a thing (and how would you know anyway since you won't "reresearch" it??). I linked the article you cited so anyone can easily see it does NOT describe "actual growth". Squirm all you want, but I've provided direct evidence of your misrepresentations (again) but all you have provided is excuses.
"But since your a bleeding heart liberal ..."
Eh - this liberal supports such things as lower taxes, less goverment (and less gov. spending), the death penalty and an individuals right to bear arms.
"I'm told we should forgive you."
I have nothing to be forgiven for, nor do I seek your forgiveness.
Give it up CL. You claimed my original post was a "perfect example of misrepresentation." You at least implied there was zero growth for which you are mistaken. Good to see you are now retracting that statement. At least you're showing an ounce of maturity since we last exchanged.
But I haven't the time to mince words with you now about a post from God knows how long ago.
Good riddins to you young man.
Posted by KW on July 30, 2007 12:19 PMCL,
You have to humor KW - when he twists things around & makes them up he is just emulating his idol - George W Bush. Or his other idol, Albie Gonzales, who has lied so many times in the Senate that he can't even remember if he gave his real name.
Twisting, stretching & destroying the truth is just a genetic trait that CONS have been blessed with & we just have to learn to live with.
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 01:34 PMKW,
I see in an earlier post you accused me of "fowl language." How dare you sir! Are you implying I'm a spokesman for Tyson and KFC?
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 01:46 PMKW:
"You claimed my original post was a "perfect example of misrepresentation."
I did not write it was a "perfect example of misrepresentation" - you can't even quote me accurately, I wrote:
"Your misrepresentation of "facts" has been demonstrated several times. Here's another example:"
Here's a couple more examples where I pointed out your misrepresentations -
My post on June 26 at 09:33 AM on this thread:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/06/proud_to_be_a_denier.html
and June 2 at 11:06 AM on this thread:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/06/climate_change_51.html
You at least implied there was zero growth for which you are mistaken. Good to see you are now retracting that statement."
I neither implied that nor retracted did I retract anything I wrote (read carefully now...):
KW:
"When you read "suggests that surface accumulation rates did not change significantly" you interpret that to mean there wasn't any growth at all."
There you go making misrepresentations again. I explicitly wrote:
"It does not say whether the changes were increases or decreases"
There is no retraction there, I just quoted what I wrote earlier.
How do you go from "It does not say whether the changes were increases or decreases" to "implied there was zero growth"? My language could not be any more explicit than that (which I was pointing out to you).
You just get deeper in the hole with each post and are sounding like nothing more than a troll.
drew:
Twisting, stretching & destroying the truth is just a genetic trait that CONS have been blessed with & we just have to learn to live with.
I wouldn't say those are conservative traits - they can be found with many liberals as well. I know many conservatives that are honest, articulate and accurate in supporting their positions. KW isn't one of them though and he does more harm than good to his own positions and political philosophy.
Posted by CL on July 30, 2007 03:03 PMwell, CL, I can't say I know any - and the conservative posters on this site - especially KW - reinforce that perception.
Posted by drew on July 30, 2007 04:33 PMKW coined a new phrase with "Good riddins to you young man"
At which point CL rids off into the sunset.
Posted by on July 31, 2007 04:53 PM