Bush Comes Out Swinging

George Bush defended his strategy in Iraq, giving us lots to talk about.

Here is transcript and the Times lead:

Bush Forcefully Attacks Critics of His Strategy in Iraq

By MARIA NEWMAN

President Bush lashed out today at critics of his Iraq policy, accusing them of trying to rewrite history about the decision to go to war and saying their criticism is undercutting American forces in battle.

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said in a Veterans Day speech in Pennsylvania.

This may be a house-to-house battle, because I am stalled at the third word - did Bush "lash out"?  Or did he, for example, "respond forcefully"?  I guess between the headline and the lead, there is something for everyone.

Next, what about this:  "...saying their criticism is undercutting American forces in battle."

Gee, folks are allowed to criticize, yes?  Free country, free speech, right?  Why is this man suggesting otherwise?  Why is he stifling dissent?

Well, down in the text we find the quote that ostensibly supports the Times presentation:

"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," he said. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

"False charges" and "baseless attacks" from "politicians"?  If Bush is saying that it is irresponsible for politicians to lie, is that unreasonable?  I didn't ask if it was unrealistic, now, I asked if it was unreasonable.

In any case, I believe there is a substantial difference between "Your false charges are undermining the troops" and "Your criticism is undermining our troops".

OK, I understand that for purposes of debating this point, war critics will have to insist that *all* their criticisms are perceived as false.  However, that is simply not so.  For example, a war opponent who argued that this war would not go well without international support and a specific UN resolution is entitled to that opinion, and I don't see how it could be proven to be either true or false.  Consequently, I don't see how the specific passage offered by the Times could be viewed as an attempt by Bush to stifle that particular dissent, or to question that critic's patriotism.

But I am gloomily resigned to having it explained to me.

The Democrats do seem to be finding traction with the new approach.  The old talking point - "I would have spoken out against the war, but Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly would have been mean to me, and Arnold might have called me a girlie-man" - lacked a certain John Wayne quality.

Whether the new talking point - "I couldn't see through Bush's lies" - takes hold depends on just how empty-headed various Dems want to appear as they abase themselve before their base.

John Edwards can't quite say the words:

In an interview after the UNC speech, Edwards finally utters the words he’d assiduously avoided during the last campaign: “I voted for the resolution,” he says. “It was a mistake.” So far, so good. But he goes on, “The hard question is, What do you do now?  Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn’t admit that isn’t honest, and that’s the truth.”

Not quite there!  Obviously, some of the info was false.  But he needs to admit that Bush lied!

MORE:  Bush lashed out at the Times his critics waaay down in the speech.  The relevant bit is below:

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and that is their right, and I respect it.

As president and commander in chief, I (accept ?) the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Some Democrats and antiwar 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.

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 hand is a threat and a grave threat to our security." That's why more then a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

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. 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 to them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that when -- whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less then victory. 

Comments

[GT]

The waste of time is debating this. The war itself was huge mistake, as a majority of Americans now realize.

[kim]

Syl, as I'm sure you may know, Chalabi, the Master of the Bazaar, is already back in charge. He and Sistani respect each other and they are far and away the two most powerful men in Iraq.
=================================================

[Syl]

JBG

Nitpick away. But whatever you do or don't find, you can't pin it on Bush. Hey, maybe you can try to get Cheney, but Bush is clean.

This is a smear.

And it won't be long before the American people understand that.

[Sue]

Do you think Saddam's attorneys are reviewing the headlines in our major papers searching for their defense? I do. :)

[Syl]

GT

Strawman.

[Syl]

GT

The majority of Americans still believe we cannot cut and run.

[GT]

Syl,

Grasp what you can.

[Sue]

Is bringing down Bush more important than winning the WOT? Because leaving Iraq early will be seen as a clear victory to our enemies.

[p.lukasiak]

well, Bush is finally making good on his promise to "bring us together"

Back in January, only 30% of Americans could have been considered "Bush haters" (those who strongly disapprove of Bush) while 27% thought he could do no wrong. ("stronly approved of Bush")

In other words, America was polarized, with well over half having strong feelings about Bush--but the sides were pretty evenly divided.

But that polarization seems to be fading, because while 61% now have strong feelings about Bush, the "Bush lovers" are down to 18% (all of whom apparently post here) while the Bush haters comprise 43% of all American adults.

Its almost to the point where, if you run into a perfect stranger, you are running into a Bush hater.

This is why Bush's recent lashing out at Democrats trying to get at the truth is so counter-productive. That 39% that doesn't feel strongly one way or another is gonna be hearing from 43% of the people they know that they are insulted and pissed off that Bush would challenge THEIR patriotism....

source:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr051111-1topline.pdf&id=2862

[Rick Ballard]

Syl,

You have to admit that the seditionists have a point. No one will ever vote for George Bush again. It takes a special kind of person to struggle against what cannot be changed. Thank God there are so few of them.

[p.lukasiak]

Is bringing down Bush more important than winning the WOT? Because leaving Iraq early will be seen as a clear victory to our enemies.

perhaps. but staying in Iraq with strengthen our real enemies, and increase the alienation of those whose help we need to fight them.

So its kinda a toss up....
except your side will be standing in the blood of thousands of more Americans if you win the argument.

[GT]

Sue,

Our dear moron president should have thought of that before invading

[p.lukasiak]

Do you think Saddam's attorneys are reviewing the headlines in our major papers searching for their defense? :)

no, but they are probably reading this blog, looking for defensive legal theories to butress their defense. And with any luck, they will pick up on the recommendations of the wingnuts here, and Saddam will be swinging by his neck very soon as a result :)

[max]

"Bush is not hated except by the people who have hated him all along." syl

Or to put it another way -

Bush is hated by the same people who hated Reagan.

And they talked about Reagan with the same incoherent blend of nastiness and smears that they use against Bush.

They were wrong about Reagan and they're wrong about Bush.

[GT]

Not really Max. Bush is hated by a lot more people than Reagan ever was. A lot more.

[Sue]

GT,

Calling your president a moron might make you feel better, but it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

[GT]

I know Sue, but it always helps to tell the truth.

[Sue]

P. Luk,

Sure they are. I will almost wager with you that articles from the NYTs, etc. will be entered as evidence that Bush lied when he invaded, ergo, Saddam was illegally arrested.

[boris]

The people who don't want to fight don't have to.

In our free society those who choose to fight don't need their permission.

If they want to run things differently then they should figure out how to win elections before trying to claim anything about the blood of free people who fight against terror and tyranny. Especially since their freedom to disagree was purchased in blood by such people.

[Sue]

GT,

Okay, if it is truth telling time...I truthfully have no use interacting with someone who feels better calling the president a moron. Too bad this blog doesn't have the ignore function found on MBs. I will have to do it virtually. :)

[boris]

I know Sue, but it always helps to tell the truth.

Then you should attempt to learn what it is before making a fool of yourself.

[Anonymous Liberal]

For those of you that keep quoting Clinton, Gore, Albright, and others, you're missing the point. Yes, many liberals have opened the door to that sort of rebuttal by lazily arguing that the Bush administration lied about all things WMD-related. But your response totally ignores what intelligent critics of the Bush administration are actually arguing. There were many dubious claims made by the Bush administration that were never made by the prior administration, particularly claims about Iraq's nuclear program. You can't defend those statements by pointing to what Clinton administration officials said (because they didn't say anything about them). At some point you're actually going to have to substantively address those statements.

If you can find me a quote from Al Gore, Bill Clinton, or Madeleine Albright discussing the significance of aluminum tubes, just to take one example, I'm all ears.

[GT]

Sue,

If you are not going to talk to people who think Bush a moron you are going to have a very limited number of people to talk to.

[Dwilkers]

Sigh. Inane lefty assertions posing as argument.

Yes, yes, Bush is HATED by so many.

That's why he just lost the election a year ago, and that's why the Dems were swept to power in both house of congress.

Republicans have been reduced to absolute impotence. The Dems now control every branch of the federal government, the executive, legislative and judiciary. Because Bush is so hated.

[Syl]

AL

We went to war for many reasons, Iraq's current nuclear capability was only one of them.

Aluminum tubes? Someone thought the notion was ridiculous. Others did not.

IF the consensus is above a certain level on any particular issue, you go with it.

I, for one, didn't believe the nuclear stuff at all. Neither did I believe Saddam was going to attack us here in America. I did fear that he would use chem and bio on our troops though. Thank god he didn't.

[boris]

Bush is hated by a lot more people than Reagan

Not by a long shot. It just seems that way to you because you are clueless and the internet provides a giant echo chamber.

Reagan lost both houses of congress.

[Syl]

p.luk.

staying in Iraq with strengthen our real enemies, and increase the alienation of those whose help we need to fight them.

This is laughable. We're even getting help from the French and the Saudi's. Germany is doing its share in Afghanistan. That's fine with us.

Zarqawi is losing in Iraq and is lashing out elsewhere. The head of Jordanian intelligence says it's because our military is doing a great job against al Qaeda in Iraq. And we are.

So you'd better back up your assertions with a little more than wishful thinking or lefty analysis.

[Sue]

AL,

My support for the invasion of Iraq did not start with his nuclear capabilities nor did it end when those were proven not to be well-founded. If you can explain to me how the connection Clinton clearly made between Saddam and Osama suddenly is no longer valid, I'll buy you a cup of coffee. :)

[GT]

he boris you really need to check. Start looking at the polls.

[Syl]

I did like uncle Hamza though :( Wonder what ever happened to him?

[Syl]

GT

Do you want us to lose the war on Islamic extremism? I wouldn't be so overjoyed with poll numbers if I were you.

They'll change again though. Otherwise why are so many polls taken.

[Sue]

In 1994, Clinton's poll numbers were 37. :) But don't tell democrats, they think he never dropped below 50.

[GT]

War on Islamic extremism? He, you know all your talking points, don't you?

[Syl]

GT

There are other explanations besides Iraq, though. Many of Bush's supporters didn't like Miers. And many think Bush isn't pushing Congress hard enough to get their work done. They're instead caving to Dem demands to investigate this, form a committee over that, have hearings on the other.

Waste of time. Which is why the party in power is supposed to have control of all those things...so the opposition can't tie up Congress with obstruction tactics.

The Reps have caved on almost everything. Many blame Bush for not getting them coralled.

[Syl]

GT

War on Islamic extremism? He, you know all your talking points, don't you?>/i>

You think the war is just a talking point? You jerks are so ignorant of what's happening out there.

[Syl]

ooops

[Dwilkers]

Hehe, ScrappleFace:

Democrats Deny Having Pre-War Intelligence

In part:

“Our troops deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war will remain firm in our conviction that we didn’t know what we were doing at the time,” Sen. Kerry said. “It’s important, on Veteran’s Day, to remember that our Democrat commitment to our military hasn’t changed.”

[Syl]

p.luk.

btw: strengthen our real enemies

and who might that be? Do you even know who our real enemies are or are you just spouting off.

[SteveMG]

Anonymous Liberal:
I'm no intelligence analyst but I'll play one on the internet.

Re the tubes. I'll cite this example, with the acknowledgement that "for example is no proof" (Yiddish saying I think).

Larry Wilkerson, a fierce critic of the W.H. and the former top aide to Powell, recently said this about the tubes:

"In fact, I’ll just cite one more thing. The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by god, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments? We were wrong. We were wrong."

Complete Text Here

So, there was a dispute among the various agencies or parties looking into the matter. The Bush Administration concluded, wrongly, that the tubes could be used to build centrifuges. But, as Wilkerson notes, they had evidence pointing that way.

They were wrong.

No serious person argues that there weren't disputes over specific pieces of evidence or allegations. If we go back and examine every single piece of data on one side, I'm sure we can find countervailing information. Or, de minimis, contradictory evidence.

The White House took the evidence and applied it to someone they already viewed as guilty. And so they assumed the worst about Saddam's intentions. Given his track record, I don't think that was an unfair approach.

At the end of the day, this will come down to individual judgments. Ironically, in much the same way the White House judged Iraq's intentions.

If one believes the worst about Bush et al., then one will conclude the worst about them, i.e., that they willfully ignored exculpatory evidence. If, on the other hand, one believed the worst about Iraq, then one will conclude that the White House's conclusions were defensible, albeit wrong.

SMG

[GT]

Syl,

What can Islamic extremists do to us?

[Syl]

Dwilkers

LOL!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

We're winning. Even the Democrats can't say we're not.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

[Syl]

GT

What can Islamic extremists do to us?

They can blow up your exposed ass when your head is in the sand.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

What can Islamic extremists do to us?

Plase tell me (as someone who was working in the WTC in August 2001 and looking at the hole it left in November 2001) that this was supposed to be sarcasm.

[Syl]

Charlie

Yeah, it's a nice thought :) It would be just as nice if they'd just sit on their hands for a while.

[Rick Ballard]

Boris,

The bit about Reagan losing both houses is why Bush is going to be looked upon as the most effective Republican political figure of the past hundred years. Barring a sharp economic downturn - which shows no signs of occurring - the '06 election will be at worst a wash for the Reps and if the Dems continue to pursue the Copperhead strategy its going to mean a net pickup by Reps in both houses.

I would expect that Orwell's formulation concerning pacifists will be brushed off and given a run fairly quickly. If the Copperheads want the 'objectively pro al-Queada' label, they are welcome to it. They are certainly working to earn it. I cannot see how carrying a pro-terrorist label into the election could possibly be a winner but they are very, very, very smart at politics.

I do hope they keep trying. The objectively pro-terrorist position does reflect their honest feelings and they prize honesty above all else.

[Sue]

I stole this from Mac's site...

http://www.macsmind.blogspot.com/>Mac's Mind

"I remain of the view," Wilson told the EPIC forum crowd two months after the fall of Baghdad, "that we will find chemical and biological weapons, and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons." Wilson made this extraordinary statement after he had started leaking to the media about President Bush's alleged WMD deceptions and just weeks before his celebrated New York Times op-ed piece. This one sentence would seem to undercut the argument waged by him and literally millions of other self-deluding progressives around the world that "Bush lied" about Iraq's WMD threat. If Bush's most hostile critics in the intelligence community believed Saddam possessed such weapons, one has to ask why Bush would have needed to fabricate evidence."

[Syl]

Sue

And he got it straight from Valery who worked on wmd proliferation.

::I didn't say that, but it's probably true::

[TexasToast]

SMG

The White House took the evidence and applied it to someone they already viewed as guilty. And so they assumed the worst about Saddam's intentions. Given his track record, I don't think that was an unfair approach.

Good post - particularly in the midst of the food fight (seditionists? copperheads?, Syl's hysteria?) - but they did more than that. They presented as fact only the prosecution's half of the case and kept all contrary evidence behind a wall of redaction. Roberts himself said that the votes wouldn't have been their if the full NIE had been released.

[SteveMG]

Sue:
Great post, thanks.

It appears that liberal plan is to go back over every statement by Bush et al. during the run up to the war.

Then they'll closely examine the intelligence upon which the statements were made and if they can find contradictory analyses or opinions, they'll cite that as an example of Bush "manipulating" evidence or "hiding" data from the public.

It's a curious argument that, to my knowledge, has never been used before.

Was Kennedy supposed to tell the public during the Cuban Missile Crisis, "Oh, by the way some of our experts think this may just be conventional missiles and not nuclear ones." When Clinton launched the attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, was he supposed to explain to the public about the disagreement within the intelligence community over the evidence?

Very odd times we live in.

SMG

[boris]

GT

What can Islamic extremists do to us?

They can blow up your exposed ass when your head is in the sand.

LOL Actually they'll blow up both at the same time cuz that's where his head really is.

[Sue]

Yet 5 of the 9 democrats who did see the full report voted yes. Any explanation for that?

[boris]

What can Islamic extremists do to us?

This is WHY the left considers the real danger to be Republicans, conservatives and Christmas.

[SteveMG]

TexasToast:
They presented as fact only the prosecution's half of the case

Okay, but can you cite any previous president who, when announcing a major foreign policy action or military engagement, presented "the other side"?

Kennedy with the missile crisis? Clinton with the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant? Roosevelt with the Maine? Jefferson with the Barbary Pirates? I'm sure that each had (some) exculpatory evidence for the parties involved.

If my history is accurate, they didn't present it to the public.

This appears to be a new standard that is being required by Administrations when they take military action. I've never heard it being done before.

SMG

[Marianne]

The question is not whether or not there was evidence that Saddam possessed WMD's in early 2003. There was substantial evidence, even though much of it was dated, disputed or single-sourced from quesionable sources.

Instead, the question is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to justify the full-scale invasion and occupation of a hostile foreign country, at a cost of 2000+ American lives, financial costs of $6 billion+ a month (and a devalued dollar), the indefinite commitment of 1/2 of our combat-ready troops, and the serious erosion of our reputation in the international community.

This is surely not the result that President Bush expected. It would be fascinating to learn what indeed he was advised to expect in Iraq.

[topsecretk9]

You can't defend those statements by pointing to what Clinton administration officials said (because they didn't say anything about them). At some point you're actually going to have to substantively address those statements.

No we don't. One of the lefts key agruments is not finding WMD, yet almost every member of the Democratic party during that time WARNED us they were there. Either Democrats divined this or the knowledge came from available intelligence. The same Intelligence community that provided nuclear information.

Furthermore, nuclear to my mind is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Arguing declarations of sought after nuclear is somehow more egregious than declarations of stockpiling WMD is as silly as arguing which is more dealy or poses a greater risk.

[TexasToast]

Sue

Well since I haven't seen the full NIE either, I could only speculate why the 5 Dems voted to go to war.

Based on what I do know, I think they were wrong.

IMO, we didn't need to go to war becuase: (1) the sanction's regime was working; (2) I thought we would have problems with occupation (even thou I didn't think we would F*** it up this badly; and (3) I thought we ought to concentrate our resources against AQ and finish the job in Afganistan before embarking on another adventure.

Daddy Bush knew better - he stopped the invasion in the first Gulf War. Seems to me that a lot of the posters on this board would have been right their with MacArthur on crossing the Yalu. Thank God Harry T was in charge. China would have been a much bigger problem than Iraq is.

[GT]

Not really Charlie. You have no sense of proportion and why you believe in nonsense like the WOT.

How many people are killed every year in NYC?

[Syl]

I was re-reading and saw this in regard to minority leaders in Congress and the intel:

Its a question of having the expertise to ask relevant questions --- and the time to go over the information in a way that would allow for the discovery of questionable analyses and conclusions.

May I ask what you think the $40 billion (at least) we pay the CIA is for?

Now we're only supposed to vote into office those who have expertise in intel analysis?

[boris]

Leaving Saddam in power after the first gulf war was an obvious and tragic mistake. Clinton knew it but was only willing to talk the talk, not walk the walk.

After 911 and the military was engaged in the WOT, Saddam was given one last chance. He blew it by trusting in his bribes to France, Russia and the UN to save him. He was wrong.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, he played chicken with a Texas cowboy and lost everything. He brought it on himself. Blaming W for his karma is as stoopid as blaming BJ's problems on Starr.

[Sue]

Son of a gun...Clinton's justice department's 1998 indictment against bin Laden.

Here is a paragraph from Count 4 of the indictment:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Nope, no reason at all to believe anything Bush said. :)

[GT]

No Boris. Totally wrong. Bush I was right. The mistake was to go after Saddam when there was no need. No need at all.

[Sue]

TT,

You've been speculating about everything else, why are you hesitant to speculate as to why 5 of 9 democrats, who did see the classified document, voted yes?

[topsecretk9]

Also Anon

I was on board absent the WMD or Nuc information. For a number of reasons. One was the waste of time cat and mouse game called Inspections. The opponents of the war have never really explained why Saddam wouldn't comply with these. That he would one day see the light an play nice is a pipe dream.

But primary reason of support was the unexplainable risk we were content ignore to our US Serviceman patrolling the no-fly zone. How long should we allow Saddam to routinely fire on these guys?

That alone was an act of war to me.

I don't understand the people who say they support the troops but never once found this to be acceptable;e.

[topsecretk9]

acceptable;e.= unacceptable

[Marcel]

How many pilots did we lose patrolling the no-fly zone? None. How many soldiers and marines have we lost on the ground? Over 2000 and counting.

[GT]

topsecret,

pretty simple. Cost benefit analysis.

Iran is now giving high powered bombs to insurgents who kill our troops, something Iraq never did. Yet we don't declare war on Iran.

[hrtshpdbox]

Just saw the speech, gosh, he was great. Here's hoping that it's just the start of a long offensive to disabuse the American people of the nonsense that spouts forth from Chris Matthews et al. When it comes to determination to stay the course against terrorism, Bush is clearly as adamant as Cheney. Regardless of any shortcomings (spending like a sailor, letting the borders be a sieve), if Bush perseveres in this manner during these absolutely critical times, he IS a great president. I heard Krautheimer saying tonight that the Dems must be looking towards impeachment after the '06 sweep they're fantasizing about; how pathetic. I hate to be simplistic about it, but it's becoming a black-and-white world, with Bush and freedom and safety for democracy on one side, and Harry Reid and Babs Streisand and picayune special prosecutions on the other. Go Bush!

[boris]

Totally wrong

Totally right. Freedom and democracy are needed now, needed there more than ever.

[GT]

nah hrt, he was terrible and it will make no difference. Bush is on the side of terrorists, no one has done more to help them than he has.

[Marcel]

It is not only liberals and Democrats who are questioning the Iraq strategy; Pat Buchanan got right to the point this week:
“…. in March 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us and did not threaten us – to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have. “

[topsecretk9]

Also from Al Gores speech (which I find intersting)

"And, of course, it is a particular disappointment that Syria, at least for now, has turned down offers made in good faith in Geneva. As Israel proceeds to withdraw from Lebanon in compliance with Resolution 425, President Assad can decide to let this happen without incident, as a down payment for peace in the future; or, by continuing to allow Hezbollah to harass Israel as her troops withdraw and even after they withdraw, he can signal that he is not interested in progress.

Syria may not choose to pursue peace for now. It is Syria's choice. But make no mistake, Syria has no right to pursue a course of conflict that denies peace to others. The people of the Galilee should be able to live their lives without the disruptions of air raid sirens. I have been with some of you in some of the villages right on the border. I have seen what the people who live there feel about their proximity to this threat. If peace does not come to this area, President Assad will bear a heavy responsibility before the entire world.

It is a sign of how serious matters have become that Prime Minister Barak has decided to remain at home, of course, cancelling his trip here. Ehud Barak is far away from here tonight, but I would like him to know that -- well, this morning -- it's this afternoon in Israel -- but the message that we all send to him should be loud and clear. We stand by you in these critical days. The United States of America stands by you in these critical days. We are with you. We stand by you. You are our friend. These are tough times; we are with you."

[GT]

totally wrong boris. totally wrong.

[Sue]

Does anyone here seriously think the sanctions would remain, indefinitely? And even if they remained, how effective were they with the OFF scandal? Does anyone here remember what Blix and David Kay said, post-Iraq? Saddam, while not in possession of actual WMDs, retained the capability to restart those programs and had EVERY INTENTION of doing so once the sanctions were lifted.

[GT]

It's not an either or Sue.

[topsecretk9]

GT

"Iran is now giving high powered bombs to insurgents who kill our troops, something Iraq never did. Yet we don't declare war on Iran."

if they are in the crosshairs, fine by me

[boris]

we don't declare war on Iran

Iran has not violated any cease fire agreements. In due time Iraq will take care of Iranian extremeism if there own people won't do it first. W picked the right place for all the right reasons.

[hrtshpdbox]

"If you are not going to talk to people who think Bush a moron you are going to have a very limited number of people to talk to."

He seemed rather un-moronic in today's speech. Loved how he quoted both the Koran and Zawahiri's letter - bound to get teeth knashing in some distant caves. No, today Bush successfully painted extremists, both domestic and foreign, as the morons.

[GT]

no crosshairs topsecret.

Boris, Iraq is becoming an ally of Iran. Only in your imagination is Iraq a threat to Iran.

[boris]

Bush is on the side of terrorists

totally wrong boris. totally wrong

It's not an either or

What a maroon.

[TexasToast]

Sue

Re 5 dems

do you really think the Democrats are an organized, unified party? Ask Will Rodgers.

You republicans are now learning how difficult it can be for a "majority" party to appease all its factions. There is still a faction of the Democratic Party in favor of the war. As Tom points out in the post, they are going to have problems in the primaries.

SMG

All of these presidents had to "get the votes." My party flinched - I'm not proud of them. Nothing has changed in that regard.
BTW, McKinley was president when the Maine blew up (at whose hands is still disputed). Teddy went up San Juan Hill.

[topsecretk9]

W picked the right place for all the right reasons.

Boris, you are so right...the key is freedom.

[boris]

Iraq is becoming an ally of Iran

Iraq is becoming a democratic state, ally of the US.

[GT]

Yes boris, Bush is a maroon.

[Bring Ittttt]

Rove is back!!!! He is large and in charge!!!!

Libs preparing for more losses in '06.

[GT]

You are beyond delusional boris.

[boris]

Yes boris, Bush is a maroon

Reduced to shoolyard taunts !!! Loser.

[GT]

quite delusional honey. Quite delusional

[topsecretk9]

Texas

"My party flinched - I'm not proud of them. "

Your party flinched because they didn't have the balls to tell their extremist they believed in their vote.

The ads for next years mid-terms have already been written. Today was the turning point, a long purposeful silence.Your party chose quagmire as the one hit wonder. Your party made the same mistake 2ce.

"I supported the war, before I didn't"

[boris]

You are beyond delusional boris.

You otta know being the expert on delusional and all. I've moved beyond but you are stuck on stoopid.

[GT]

Actually the losers are the American people that ended up with this incompetent as president.

[Sue]

TT,

Not my point. They saw the same evidence as Bush did, classified NIE. Why are you so reluctant to address that? You weren't so willing to ignore republicans who saw it and voted yes.

[boris]

American people that ended up

Free purple finger Iraqis say you are full of crap.

[topsecretk9]

"Actually the losers are the American people that ended up with this incompetent as president."

GT, go read Anonymous Liberals posts. You could take some lessons. Anon has substance.

[GT]

I'm sorry, I thought Bush was the President of the US, not of Iraq.

[GT]

no matter topsecret. Support for Bush and the war contiues to fall because the incompetent has messed everything up.

[boris]

At least GT's posts are short. Unfortunately they're so short you can't skip them. By the time you see who it is you already know what the maroon has spit up.

[boris]

Bush was the President of the US

And Lincoln was the president of white people.

[max]

1. "Bush is hated by a lot more people than Reagan ever was. A lot more." gt (got toothache?)

Further fallout from the damage the teachers' unions have done in the last 20 years. :)

Seriously, the vitirol aimed at Reagan by the nyt, wp etc. and by the chettering classes was off the charts. (I'm old enough to remember it.)

And I note that you don't argue with my point that the people who hated Rreagan were wrong. Because of course you can't.

2. "IMO, we didn't need to go to war becuase: (1) the sanction's regime was working;" - TexasTamale

As I live and breath, it's either George Galloway or Scott Ritter posting on this board, because no one else could have written those words. :) (Not enough typos for DU).

3. Seriously, the real questions are:

a) "Should Saddam been allowed to remain in power?" Or do say it another way, "Are we safer with Saddam deposed than we would be if he had remained in power?" and

b) "What is our best course going forward now that we're in Iraq and have deposed Saddam?"

Not the nit-picking bs that the Demos have been braying ever since Howard Dean rolled onto the national stage.

[GT]

max, you too need remedial math. Check the poll numbers to see who was more unpopular and the intensity.

as for your questios the anwsers are clear.

1) We are less safe than before attacking Iraq. There was no need to invade and we only managed to give the enemy more chances to kill us and recruit against us.

2) What do we do now? Simple. We are going to have to leave pretty soon unless the incompetent manages to turn things around. Unlike the posters here Americans do not think the war is going well or that it was worth it. And without public support we can't continue for a long time.