BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:05 AM

An article about the visit in today's New York Times shows the visit to have been a calculated part of the strategy to silence criticism for not being engaged with the troops, and not just from the Democratic presidential candidates (which is who the NYT in this article seems to suggest are Bush's only critics). Had the Bush boys not seen this as a political problem, the troop visit wouldn't have been such a grand political solution.

Here is the excerpt fromt the NY Times:

"The trip came at a time of rising criticism of the president for not attending the funerals of the returning war dead. It also came in the same week that Mr. Bush met with families of 26 soldiers killed in Iraq, and thus appeared to be a concerted effort by the White House to deal with a political problem.

And now, in a single day, Mr. Bush may have managed to supplant what has become the single most problematic image of him in this war: The picture of him swaggering across an aircraft carrier in front of banner reading "Mission Accomplished."

That image, which already has shown up in an advertisement by Mr. Kerry attacking the president, now seems likely to be overtaken by the picture of Mr. Bush, his eyes glistening with tears, addressing cheering troops on Thanksgiving Day. It was a moment fraught with imagery that was certainly a central subject of discussion at Thanksgiving tables."

The Bush campaign is locked in a battle for the hearts and minds of the American electorate, not the people of Iraq. Their preferred weapon of choice in this battle is the orchestrated film footage of the president looking military, despite his pathetic, cowardly military record during the Vietnam war.

On another "god, that just disgusts me note" I would like to add Wesley Clark's absolute cheap shot at Howard Dean while Dean was in Hawaii meeting the military plane carrying what is believed to be his brother's remains. Clark said something to the effect that while Dean was sitting safely at home with his medical deferment, Clark was sitting recovering from his Vietnam battle wounds.

I am just tremendously sickened by the troop trump card being used by these politicians. Wesley Clark sure as hell lost any possibility of my support when I heard those remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:18 AM

And another thing!

Blair not only had the guts to do a highly publicized trip to visit his troops BACK IN MAY FOR CHRIST SAKE, but also to acknowledge in his remarks addressed to those troops that their country had been deeply and bitterly divided about going to war against Iraq. And he did it without looking like a hyper militarized Lex Luthor.

Would that our fearful leader could show even one ounce of that sort of leadership. The Bush administration lives in a neo con Neverland on a river in Egypt...

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:25 AM

Pardon me if I save the plauditudes for bravery and heroism for the soldiers who didn't get to choose whether or not to "sacrifice" dinner at home with their family on Thanksgiving by being in Baghdad.

And while we are at it, there are an enormous number of journalists in Iraq despite the dangers to themselves, dismissed in this thread as usuful to take photos on a Presidential visit. Iraq has been a dangerous place to be a journalist, particularly since the American troops seem to keep killing them. They DID make a choice... and yet they are still there.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:44 AM

Here is a link to the UK's Independent article on the visit:

"The Turkey Has Landed"

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:06 PM

Teribus, so Bush provided leadership when it was needed? Leadership to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with 911? That's leadership? Look, the phoney lying bastard admitted on national TV that Iraq had nothing to do with 911! How the hell can you call him a leader? Was Captain Smith, master of the TITANIC a great leader? Do you see the analogy?
Bush is desperate to get elected (for the first time) and he will prostitute himself any way he has to to do it.
Sure he loves the troops who are alive to vote, but he spends no time being concerned about the dead or the veterans. It amazes me how many people this creep has been able to buffalo.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:19 PM

And so and thus, sad all this fuss
So few did vote, most dissed by rote
Now photo opts, mock danger cop'ds
In costumed time, the electing dime...

Not bravery, but slavery
Did induce, this Turkey'd ruse
This fowl mirage, His business lodge
As C.E.O., in this side show

Distractions here, amidst the cheer
Elections there, so... extra care
And where else could, our George do good
War troubles he's, up to his knees

But really and, campaign's all planned
And all he's done, 's been by the gun
This war he's got, "his only spot"
He had to go... so... just say Know.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: DougR
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:32 PM

Kim, Teribus, Jed: a waste of time to argue with these folks. Let them rave on I say. It's probably good for their digestion.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:44 PM

I'd have thought Bush might even have felt a bit safer in the middle of his army in Baghdad than back home in America, where they shoot Presidents from time to time.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: InOBU
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:59 PM

Brave? Well, brave if the US troops he met were not disarmed, as I think they were the ones who posed a real threat to him, after all, they are the ones sent to war on a lie and then had their benifits cut, their funerals ignored and the real number and nature of their injuries hidden... Brave? Well in an idiotic sort of way, yes!
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peace
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 01:08 PM

I need stronger medication. DougR and I agreed on something. Is civilization coming to an end? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 02:49 PM

not a mention by anyone of how ridiculous this trip looked. think about it:

the so-called leader of the so-called only super power, the so-called most powerful country in the history of civilisation, some would say,

has to sneak into a country we supposedly now control in the middle of the night under cover of darkeness and the most heightened security in complete secrecy to help carve turkeys for a randomly selected portion of the troops on the ground in the most secure place in the country at the moment.

doesn't this make him look so strong and powerful, and such a leader!

A LEADER WOULD HAVE SAID I'M GOING TO IRAQ TO VISIT MY TROOPS. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE TROUBLE, BRING IT ON!

this guy is a gutless wonder, an embarrassment. I bet the al qaeda guys and Saddam Hussein's followers (not the same people) are all laughing up thier sleeves at how scared they have got everybody. He couldn't even trust his own parents, a former President, with the information! Pathetic, useless, wasteful, disgusting, disrespectful show, strictly a photo op for political purposes, and sadly, because enough of the country is so gullible and there is no leadership in any other party to oppose him it may even work to get him re-appointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 07:27 AM

We are still awaiting the answer to the big question, What is there to admire about Bush?
Jed? Doug? Teribus? Kim? you have the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:10 AM

I already posted my answer, or the best one I could give, yesterday. I admit I am not a politically savvy person, so I imagine my answer was probably not a very good one in that regard. It's mostly just me trying to find the positives. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:50 AM

This was event orchestrated to suck in people who aren't politically savvy, looking for feel good images about our destructive and immoral policy on the Iraqi occupation.

Judging by the "positive" responses to the campaign stunt, I'd say the Bush spinners pulled it off.

You can fool some of the people all the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 12:10 PM

People who have been schooled in critical thought and intelligent debate know enough to first question the predicate. Those who are not skilled in these areas, when confronted with questions that are outside their ability to respond to (because they fall outside their preconceived notions and pat answers), ignore the question. When confronted their only response is to say "forget it, you will never be happy".

Of course this was a photo op, and a play to overcome a perceptual problem. All politicians do this, including the ones I have supported over the years. It is not uncommon to use what is available in current events. Are the mans actions hypocritical, given what he is doing legislatively? Absolutely. This "Patriot President" is doing all he can to destroy the American Middle Class and increase the gap between the have and have nots in this country. You can see it every day in the lost manufacturing jobs, an economy that is increasing in its profits, but creating no new jobs (in this country, at least), and a business sector that is perfectly willing to sacrifice our standard of living in favor of increased profitability coming from emerging countries.

Is he sincere about visiting our troops? I believe he is very sincere in his admiration of them and their sacrifice. In fact, within the very narrow scope of lifting morale of these soldiers, I applaud him. In the larger scope of his policies, he should be condemned for putting them there without a follow on plan for the restoration of the country; without adequate funding to accomplish it; and for endangering them with a misogynistic, "America is the greatest..." attitude.

In reading this debate, it is clear to me that Peter T, even though it is crystal clear he despises the man, is right on. He asks the tough questions that the supporters of GWB refuse to answer. His answer to the issue of whether the President has time is absolutely right on. Just a phone call, anything. Of course, the answer to the question is very simple, though, friend Peter. The President has a duty to do those things that will keep up public support for his policies. That is not wrong. It would make no sense whatever for him to do any public thing that would decrease support for a policy that he believes (presumably)is the right thing to do. Were he to draw attention to the dead, it would result in a loss of public support for a policy that he believes is correct. Were I in his shoes, I likely would do the same thing. Rather than try to paint him as an evil man with less than honorable intentions (I do not think this is totally true), it is much better to show that his plans in this arena and others, is just plain faulty. The outcome is becoming easier to see all the time.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 03:31 PM

I have always believed that a good leader is aware of his/her weaknesses, and will choose a cabinet of people who can make up for those shortcomings.

Sorry, Kim, but in this case the "Cabinet" chose Dumbya as their front man quite a while before the election, not the other way 'round.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 06:26 PM

This is how it should have happened:

GWB: Put out an announcement that I am visiting Iraq to have Thanksgiving dinner with the troops. Dammit, I am their CinC.

Aide: But sir, there will probably be people there waiting to attack you.

GWB: Bring 'em on!

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 08:09 PM

Well said, Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 09:12 PM

I just got back --

1. Veteran's Day is generic. Honoring Veteran's Day is not the same as honoring the deaths of men he, as their commander in chief, sent into battle. He is directly accountable for that.

2. Leaderhip is nothing out of context. Josef Stalin had great leadership ability, intelligence and courage. He did not use these qualities to make the world a better place.

3. I dislike Bush, but I also believe that most any of the presidents that I can remember (starting with FDR) would have been unable to keep from using this trip as a publicity device. That doesn't make it less contemptible.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:14 PM

Well, there is another aspect of "The Trip" that could come back to haunt Bush and that is if he falls back into his predictable behavior of ignoring the troops, other than in his rhetoric... I mean, can you imagine an ad, run by a Dean/Clark ticket with images of veterans in VA hospitals and vets in the middle of war and then *the voice* comes on and says "George Bush" as the images of Bush standing on the carrier deck with the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him, then to Bush eating dinner in Bahgdad and then a final shot of a Bush as a Texas Air National Guardsman with "A.W.O.L" accross his chest and then *the voice* says "Security is not a part time job" as the image of A.W.O.L. image fades and a picture of Dean and Clark (in uniform) take its place...

Whaddayathink, Big Mick....

(I'm available....)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:44 PM

Okay then. If the President hadn't done anything to recognize the troops at Thanksgiving, what would the public reaction be to that?

Consider this, also... while he may not be going to the funerals as often as we think proper, how do we know he isn't writing letters and making phone calls? Those things done in the privacy of the Oval Office may not necessarily get in the news.

I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily a Bush supporter on the whole. I do, however, admit that I like to debate. Not argue - arguing is mean and nasty and pointless. I just like having all sides of a story, is all, and I appreciate hearing what others have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 03:28 AM

Like I said before, Kim:

'Sleepless summed it up exactly.

'"He did the right thing by going. It's a shame that he felt like he needed to milk it for the publicity."'

and:

'3. I dislike Bush, but I also believe that most any of the presidents that I can remember (starting with FDR) would have been unable to keep from using this trip as a publicity device. That doesn't make it less contemptible.'

clint

(Maybe Jimmy Carter could have handled it)

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:33 AM

The man believes that what he has gotten us into is right. It follows that he should show the troops his personal gratitude. However, my personal disdane for the only president I have ever detested gets in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 09:28 AM

Kendall- you MUST have detested Tricky Dick just a little bit, no? Although I agree that Dumbya AND HIS JUNTA are the must detestable in quite a while. Since "The Great Somnolator" anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 10:24 AM

The notion that the left despised Nixon is largely a myth, perpetuated by right wing nuts who despise the Clintons. The left despised the war, but I wouldn't say the left despised Nixon more than they did Johnson regarding the war. Don't forget, Johnson was so despised because of the war, that he couldn't even seek another term--and he was a very popular president after he was sworn in to replace Kennedy. So popular that he was able to push through the civil rights legislation that had been the biggest item on Kennedy's domestic agenda, and certainly the most controversial.

For some reason, the mean and ugly neo con Republicans and their choir believe that the politics is personal--it isn't. Except with them, of course, because they make it so. They act as if having to share the country with anyone who disagrees with them is the equivalent of living with the enemy. That is the main reason why the Bush regime and it's supporters are so sicko, paranoid, and delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peter T.
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 10:47 AM

I am not sure a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to keep up public support for his policies. I think a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to try and convince the public that his policies are those that are in the best interests of the body politic as a whole, even if they do not always, and cannot always, be measured in terms of overt public support. What keeps this system from breaking down is the fundamental public trust, which does not need to be measured in terms of public support -- I may not support my government's action, but I need to trust that they are not engaged in active evil, that they take the public trust seriously. What makes the current situation so toxic is that the so-called needs of security, secret intelligence, and anti-terrorism depend (in democracies) on fundamental trust in the honesty of our leaders, if they claim to be making decisions based on intelligence that cannot be made public. We have overwhelming evidence that we have been lied to and manipulated by ideologues who are untrustworthy.

This is why the remark -- "Were he to draw attention to the dead, it would result in a loss of public support for a policy that he believes is correct" -- is, I think, wrong. Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg and drew attention to the dead, so as to ensure the nation that while he might have difficulties with public support, he was the keeper of the public trust.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 11:37 AM

"I think a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to try and convince the public that his policies are those that are in the best interests of the body politic as a whole, even if they do not always, and cannot always, be measured in terms of overt public support."

Very good!

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: tar_heel
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 11:52 AM

IT WAS AWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSOOOMMMEEEEE!!!!nuff said!

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 12:00 PM

"I think a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to try and convince the public that his policies are those that are in the best interests of the body politic as a whole, even if they do not always, and cannot always, be measured in terms of overt public support."

I agree that a president or prime minister, as leaders, cannot measure success or failure of their policies by overt or presumed public support. This administration doesn't function that way though. It seems possible it is even more poll driven than it's predecessors in the Clinton White House.

But I don't believe they should be acting in the interests of the body politic though. Leadership requires foresight, and the ability to envision a future, and then doing the hard work of body politicking to get the nation moving towards that vision of the future. First and foremost, it is a president or prime minister's mission to do what is in the best interest of the nation and of the nation's relationships to the other nations of the world. To say the current administration hasn't done this is a gross understatement. It is acting not in the best interest of the nation, but of the nation's conservative elite. It is not acting in the best interest of the nation's relationship to other nations of the world, but bullying, intimidating, and manipulating them.

This administration has done more damage to the social fabric of the nation, and to it's international relationships in the two years since 9/11 than any other US administration that I can think of, barring none. If someone can cite historic precedents of other administrations doing this much permanent damage, particularly in terms of it serving exclusively it's own party ideologues and campaign contributors at the expense of the rest of the nation, I don't know of any other era in American history when that occurred at a national level. Local and regional, especially with the party boss system. But the party boss system was changed in 1972 to the current primary system, so there is no precedent there either.

This is a backward looking administration, and one working solely for what it perceives as it's own self-interest. If this president were serving the entire nation, we wouldn't see this ideological amping up of the culture wars, in an attempt to destroy the roughly 50% of the nation which embraces secular rather than fundamentalist Christian anti-government values.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 12:34 PM

It wasn't awesome, it was a predictably safe, sanitized photo op. The current obsession on the cable news channels with how the plane landed, and how Dubya snuck out the back door of the ranch, and how "historic" the handful of journalists who were taken on board (and in) by the Bushites on Air Force One felt the "mission" was, isn't even being watched by anyone but the Bush loyalists--remember, Washington is empty this weekend, so it is always an excruciatingly slow and dull news cycle for the DC pundits and DC news junkies.

The rest of the nation has been ignoring the news, watching football, gorging themselves, and shopping all weekend. Everyone knows Bush went to visit the troops, but it really didn't register much on the political radar. It was expected by all the pundits that Bush would do something this weekend to show appreciation for the troops because a) that's his job as commander in chief, and if he had done nothing but drive the truck around the ranch, there would have been a firestorm of criticism from every political direction, and b) because that was the Bush White House plan of the week: end the nagging criticism that this commander in chief is disengaged from the troops and ignoring the hard side of his war. That is why he had his aides round up the families of some of the war dead, and bring them to the White House this week. Not out of sincerety, in my opinion, but to try and regain the moral high ground during the otherwise ignored Thanksgiving news cycle.

And no visits to the wounded yet, either don't forget. They remain totally ignored.

And then there are these tokens of the Bush administration's appreciation and esteem for their beloved boys (and a few token girls) in uniform:

With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the "imminent danger" pay added to soldiers' paychecks when in battle zones.

The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were termed "wasteful and unnecessary" by the White House, Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes.

This year's White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals—despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago.

The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans—those with "non-service-related illnesses"—who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.

Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated.

In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries—military-run stores that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted troops and their families to get by—along with the possiblility of closing 19 more.

At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers' children at 14 military installations.

The White House is seeking to block a federal judge's award of damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country's reconstruction.

The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush's request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to "the cost of the extraordinary security" during Bush's recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly "would cover a vest for every soldier" in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peace
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 06:31 PM

Presidents (and other types of leaders) have a responsibility to men and women they send 'into harm's way'. Providing them with the best equipment available is one of those responsibilities.

Accusing Bush of taking advantage of a photo opportunity is like--well, when a dog pees on a fire hydrant, it's not committing an act of vandalism; it's simply being a dog.

I am a foreign national whose government opted to stay out of round two. Therefore, I won't comment further. Other than to say, Yankee, go home!

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:31 PM

Nice bit of research there, Guest 12:34! Thanks for the info, and All the best in getting more... Excellent Work!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:37 PM

As a matter of fact, I voted for Nixon...twice. When it became clear that he was a criminal, I felt betrayed. Up until then I thought he was an outstanding president.
I cast my first vote for Eisenhower,I supported Goldwater, I voted for Bush 1 when he ran against Raygun in the primary. Right after that, I became a democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:45 PM

Thanks Guest 12:34. We mudcatters all vote for more defense spending! Right? No, wait. . . We want them to spend more on vests, but not guns. . . No, that's not it. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Nov 03 - 08:51 PM

Well, I think we can all agree that Bush did what his PR handlers told him he had to do: the *minimum*.... Like I said earlier, if Bush continues to ignore the vets then he's gonna have a hard time winning next Novemeber. With Clark on the ticket, Bush will be made to look like the creep that he is....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 04:21 AM

GUEST 28 Nov 03 - 10:28 AM

"Teribus and others are conveniently overlooking the fact that US presidents, during times of war, routinely honor those who are currently making the sacrifices, not just honor them generically on Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. As many have pointed out, there could be a special ceremonial memorial."

Speaking for myself I have conveniently overlooking nothing. What I did do was respond on this specific instance. Another point with regard to what you have written above, you are the only person who has suggested "a special ceremonial memorial". That I think would be a very good idea.

Peter T. 28 Nov 03 - 10:35 AM

"It is not remotely plausible that families of soldiers would start bitching that he went to this guy's funeral, but not to ours " Oh No? - but taking that on face value I am pretty certain that if they didn't draw attention to it, there would be plenty posting on this forum who would make exactly those complaints.

kendall - 28 Nov 03 - 12:06 PM

"Teribus, so Bush provided leadership when it was needed? Leadership to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with 911? That's leadership? Look, the phoney lying bastard admitted on national TV that Iraq had nothing to do with 911!"

The link between 911 and action taken against Iraq was indirect - but the reasoning behind that decision was sound. Very shortly after the attacks of 911 - Colin Powell was interviewed and came out with a very clear statement that Iraq had absolutely no involvement in those attacks. So the "phoney lying bastard" was admitting to what exactly? - Where and when did anyone from the current administration ever state anything different to what Colin Powell said in the interview I refer to above. Examples please, chapter and verse, if you can't come up with any, for the sake of accuracy please refrain from myth building.

kendall 29 Nov 03 - 07:27 AM

We are still awaiting the answer to the big question, What is there to admire about Bush?

I believe you already have my answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:52 AM

Couldn't be easier. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003:

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 09:02 AM

Looks pretty Chapter and Verse to me! :>) Gee....maybe there is something phony and lying about the bastard after all....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 09:04 AM

Not as easy as you think Peter.

Where in your example does the President say that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of the 11th September, 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:08 AM

Mistah Bones, Do da name Al-Qaeda ring any bells wid you?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM

Teribus:

I'd try tofind other grounds were I you. The explicit literal statement in words of one syllable you want to argue abhout is not tyhe point. Much more tot he point is the inten tional inter-linking and association of 9-11, Al Qeda, Saddam HUssein, and mass destruction. With strong associations supported by weasel words.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: TIA
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM

Y este congreso y la gente americana deben reconocer otra amenaza. La evidencia de fuentes de la inteligencia, las comunicaciones secretas y las declaraciones de la gente ahora en custodia revelan que Saddam Hussein ayuda y protege a terroristas, incluyendo miembros del al Qaida. Secretamente, y sin las huellas digitales, él podría proporcionar una de sus armas ocultadas a los terroristas, o ayúdeles a desarrollar sus el propios. Antes de septiembre el 11mo, muchos en el mundo creyó que Saddam Hussein podría ser contenido. Pero los agentes químicos, los virus mortales y las redes vagas del terrorista no se contienen fácilmente.

Et ce congrès et les américains doivent identifier une autre menace. L'évidence des sources d'intelligence, les communications secrètes et les rapports des personnes maintenant dans la garde indiquent que Saddam Hussein aide et protège des terroristes, y compris des membres d'Al Qaida. Secrètement, et sans empreintes digitales, il pourrait fournir une de ses armes cachées aux terroristes, ou aidez-les à développer leurs propres. Avant septembre le 11ème, beaucoup dans le monde a cru que Saddam Hussein pourrait être contenu. Mais des agents chimiques, les virus mortels et les réseaux ombragés de terroriste ne sont pas facilement contenus.

Und dieser Kongreß und die amerikanischen Leute müssen eine andere Drohung erkennen. Beweis von den Intelligenzquellen, geheime Kommunikationen und Aussagen durch Leute jetzt im Schutz decken, daß Saddam Hussein Terroristen hilft und schützt, einschließlich Mitglieder des Als Qaida auf. Geheim und ohne Fingerabdrücke, könnte er eine seiner versteckten Waffen zu den Terroristen zur Verfügung stellen, oder helfen Sie ihnen, ihre Selbst zu entwickeln. Vor September glaubte das 11., viele in der Welt, daß Saddam Hussein enthalten werden könnte. Aber chemische Mittel, lebensgefährliche Viren und schattenhafte Terroristnetze werden nicht leicht enthalten.

E este congress e os povos americanos devem reconhecer uma outra ameaça. A evidência das fontes da inteligência, as comunicações secretas e as indicações por povos agora na custódia revelam que Saddam Hussein ajuda e protege a terroristas, including membros do al Qaida. Secreta, e sem impressões digitais, poderia fornecer uma de suas armas escondidas aos terroristas, ou ajude-lhes desenvolver seus próprios. Antes de setembro o 11os, muitos no mundo acreditaram que Saddam Hussein poderia ser contido. Mas os agentes químicos, os vírus letais e as redes shadowy do terrorista não são contidos fàcilmente.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: TIA
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:19 AM

Since the original English was apparently too obtuse, I have provided the quote in several other tongues (courtesy of Babelfish). Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:31 AM

Bush has been careful to only suggest through innuendo that Saddam was linked to 9/11, but he has suggested regularly enough. If Teribus needs a specific cite for each speech in which he did it, that can be found.

More to the point, the vice president, the national security advisor, and the secretary of defense, as well as a number of Rumseld's underlings like Wolfowitz and Armitage have made public policy speeches suggesting more strongly than Bush has that Saddam was linked to 9/11.

I mean really Teribus, do you really think the 60% of the American electorate that believes Saddam was linked to 9/11 came up with the idea on their own? Of course they didn't. The link has been made routinely through innuendo and linking of one bad guy (bin Laden) to the other bad guy (Saddam) until the polls showed that the American electorate bought the Big Lie, and gave it as one of two reasons to support Bush's war against Iraq. The other reason was the other Big Lie: WMD.

One could also find cites for the administration's policy speeches linking Saddam, and you certainly could hear it regularly on the Faux News channel as the drumbeat for war heated up throughout 2002 and early 2003 before the war started. It is part and parcel of the misinformation campaign undertaken by the administration's highest officials, to sell the American people on the war.

And Teribus, anyone who says differently is damn liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:10 PM

Bush attacked Iraq. What could be plainer than that?

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:30 PM

All ya gotta do is read the danged polls. Lots of Amercians still believe this crap. Of the *Big Three* lies (WMD's, Al Qaeda links and Nuclear threat) most Americans still believe in at least one. And way too many believe all three? Yeah the lies get printed on page one and the retractions on page 23, right under the local hog prices.

Like where did all of these folks comeup with these ideas, T-Bird????... Did they have some kind of cosmic collective dream, 'er what. Of course they didn't, you knothead. They were carefully conditioned to think this way. By whom? Take a guess....

Playing symantics here is nothing more than an academic exercise. Bottom line, there is no doubt that Bush and Co' wanted people to believe the Big Three. And just keep in mind that Hitler observed that people will more easily accept big lies than smaller ones...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 02:53 AM

OK folks for yet the umpteenth time just exactly what DID the man say. Not an exercise in semantics, just a simple exercise in comprehension:

George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 28th January, 2003:

Point 1.
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Based purely on statements made by Saddam Hussein, and on his own track record, the above assessment is not outwith the bounds of probability.

Point 2.
"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

The threat mentioned in the first sentence is specified in the third. It is a question that has been asked before, but never fully answered. Taking those two sentences together, by what reasoning can that threat be totally discounted? The second sentence refers to fairly well known links between the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad and terrorist groups operating outwith Iraq's borders, primarily those groups in conflict with the Israelis. The reference to Al-Qaeda, is made because such an "alliance" based on the fundamental differences between Ba'athist Iraq and bin Laden's organisation appears unlikely. But Ba'athist Iraq did allow a senior member of Al-Qaeda entry to their country, they did allow that senior member of Al-Qaeda to remain in Iraq for hospital treatment and undoubtedly Iraqi intelligence did talk to him. What should have happened was that that man should have been arrested and held in Iraq, he wasn't. Now that trail of events, taken in isolation, may not be all that significant, but combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein was the only political leader of any country to publicly applaud and congratulate the attacks of September 11th, 2001 meant that such links irrespective of how frail could not be completely ignored.

Point 3.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained."

First sentence, pure statement of fact borne out by years of inaction and lack of resolve by the United Nations. Second sentence underlines what has been evaluated as a potential threat subsequent to September 11th, 2001.

Elsewhere in the body of the address referred to, specific mention is made of the desireability of implementation and verification of UN resolutions regarding Iraq, in order to eliminate Iraq as a potential supplier of the weapons described above to international terrorist organisation. Elsewhere in the address referred to, specific mention is made of the UN assessment of the weapons believed to be held illegaly by the Iraqi regime.

At no time at all has George W Bush ever said Iraq was in any way, shape or form responsible for the attacks of 11th September 2001. The fact does remain that a senior member of his administration clearly stated that position very shortly after those attacks took place.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 08:04 AM

The point you consistently overlook Teribus, in each and every example you cite, is that your interpretation of what Bush said is no better than the analysis we get through the neo-conservative media and pundits. We've heard it all before and remain unconvinced of it's veracity.

Now, the reason we remain unconvinced of it's veracity, or the veracity of the intelligence claims made by the senior Bush administration officials, is because those very claims have been challenged by our own intelligence agencies. We remain unconvinced of the Bush administration claims because we've heard all this doublespeak before, used as justification for all sorts of military adventurism around the world, where the US interventions have been devastating. Not beneficial Teribus, but devastating. The opinion of many intelligent, well informed people would not agree with your contention that the English and American empires have been a force for good, and therein lies the difference between people like you and people like me.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 08:13 AM

SADDAMSEPTEMBER11NUCLEARTERRORISTSAAAHHHSADDAMSEPTEMBER11ALQAEDAWEAPSONSOFMASSDESTRUCTIONSADDAMAAAHHHHHORRORDESTRUCTIONSADDAMIRAQSEPTEMBER11SADDAMALQEADASADDAMNUCLEARTHREATTOAMERICACHEMICALBIOLOGICAL45MINUTESNUCLEARSEPTEMBER11SADDAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"No, I have no idea why the American people connected Saddam and September 11th. They just get these funny ideas sometime."

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 09:30 AM

Face it folks, the T-Bird ain't ever gonna connect the dots on this one... He apparently ain't got the wiring for it... He is a died in the wool neo-con true believer. He is incapable of accepting the possibility that a massive PR stunt was performed on the world with just enough tiny words thrown in, like the small print on the contract, to fall back on if and when things turned bad. Now that they're turning bad the small print is being dragged out as if it was the substance of the big sell....

Geeze, I'm still wonderin' how so many folks all of a sudden started believing the *Big Three* (Lies) when Bush is now so adament that he had nothing to do with them?

Bobert