A few key excerpts from the President’s Veteran’s Day speech on Iraq; these remarks began roughly 39 minutes into a 50 minutes speech. Transcription may not be perfect.
“…the debate at home must be free-minded.”
Suggestions that the administration led us into war are “baseless attacks” from “some Democrats.”
“It is deepy irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war [to liberate Iraq] began.”
“The stakes are too high…for politicians to throw out false charges.”
“Whatever our political differences…the troops deserve to know we stand behind them…and that our nation is united”
“We will settle for nothing less than victory.”
****
Let’s hope this augurs the beginning of a strong and concerted administration pushback against the scurrilous charges being leveled by many of his political opponents. Pointedly, Bush used the term “some Democrats” to label those opponents—a designation that I believe is important, because it signals that the partisan gloves are about to come off, and that Democratic leaders who have been making strong public accusations questioning the honesty and good faith of the administration (I’m looking at you Harry and Howard and Nancy) are about to be forcefully challenged on those claims.
Finally. Finally. Finally.
****
related: Rich Lowry, “The Gullible Party”
****
update: Glenn writes:
The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way—and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it’s deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.
And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.
That’s what we unnuanced types call plain talk.
update 2: An extended excerpt from the speech here.
****
More here.
And some additional plain talk from IP:
UPDATE: Reader Kathleen Boerger emails: “Could you do me a favor and define ‘patriotism’ please?”
I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that damage the country in time of war, simply because your donor base wants to hear them.
Patriotic people could—and did—oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels. And some who supported the war were not patriotic, if they did it out of opportunism or political calculation rather than honest belief. Those who are now trying to recast their prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they supported the war, if they did so then out of opportunism –which today’s revisionist history suggests.
Judging from the lefty hatemail this post has created, I have to observe that it’s odd—people who have spent the past year saying that Bush took us to war to enrich Halliburton somehow now think it’s beyond the bounds of civilized discussion to question people’s motives on the war. That’s part of the big lie, too.
More on historical revisionism, here.
Questions like those from Kathleen Boerger are not meant seriously, of course—she was attempting a rhetorical question that she thought Glenn wouldn’t dare touch.
She was wrong.
The first victory for the anti-war left itook place shortly after 911, when war supporters on the right agreed, however reluctantly, that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” and that we should not question anyone’s patriotism (though the left was of course allowed to question the patriotism of “chickenhawks”; which is only fair, because we’re all just a bunch of cowardly jingoistic scumtonguers, anyhow).
But Glenn touches on an important distinction that we should now be willing to embrace: namely, that though the anti-war position is not inherently unpatriotic, those in the anti-war movement who use lies and misinformation to harm the country are—and political opportunism that relies on revisionist history and the leveling of false charges in order to regain power is indicative of mindset that profoundly cynical and profoundly anti-democratic.
****
full transcript of the speech here.
****
update 3: Stop the ACLU has a roundup of reaction here; and Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury points me to this White House press release that answers Senator Big Head, as well as to this history lesson from RCP’s Tom Bevan:
What President Bush did instead was put an end to the decade-long guessing game and place the burden squarely on Saddam Hussein by saying in front of the world: “This is what we think you have. It’s now your responsibility to prove us wrong.” In the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack in the history of America, it was absolutely the right thing to do.
On FOXNews just now, Charles Krauthammer speculated that all this has to do with a Democratic hope to retake the House and Senate in order to initiate impeachment against Bush.
If it ever comes to that—if our country ever accepts such Orwellian tactics as legitimate—then America will have died.
BUSH LIED!
Meh. Bush says alot of things. Still too soon to predict, I think.
Bush and the GOP have made such a habit of letting us down and taking it like a bunch of whores that I’m not planning on getting my hopes up anytime soon.
Yeah. I want Bush to personally walk over to Capitol Hill and thrash Reid with a hickory switch that he’s cut from the South Lawn.
A man can dream.
When I see someone in the Senate call Ted Kennedy I’ll get excited.
When I see Nancy Pelosi get pimp slabpped, I’ll get excited.
When I see Michael Moore have a heart attack on live television, I’ll get excited.
When I see ANWR getting drilled like a drunk chick at a frat party, I’ll get excited.
When I see a Democrat getting indicted for something (don’t tell me they’re all innocent), I’ll get excited.
When I see the GOP apologize for the Oil profits hearings, I’ll get excited.
Yes, but to that point, not too soon to push back against the 535 liars in Congress. If recent history is any indicator—as the limpwristed ‘Republican Revolution’ of ‘94 was before it—it’s up to us. The seditionous Left has already demanded suicide.
tw: Just. Do it.
Oops! Let me try the first line again.
When I see someone in the Senate call Ted Kennedy a fat, drunken, treasonous, murdering sack of shite, I’ll get excited.
Rove needs to clear his mind of the Libby indictment and concentrate his focus on some positive administration spin (economy, foiled terrorist plots around the world, infrastructure improvemtns in Iraq).
Rove’s A-game is attacking liberal hypocrisy and lies. We need some pointed attacks on Kerry, Byrd, Kennedy, and other forces of evil.
A 2’ length of rubber hose wouldn’t hurt either… well except for the libs.
It was a good start, but I think it is time to be naming names. “My opponent”?
It would also have been more forceful had he gone back through the lists of quotes from the Clinton administration we all know and love, again naming names.
As always, he takes the high road, but in light of current circumstances I think more focused finger-pointing was in order.
For me, I say it is about time. Let this be hopefully an indication of things to come. I don’t second guess the timing either, he chose a day with great significance. As a veteran of 6 years, I welcome the timing….
NEVER QUIT!!!!!
Bush: “Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,” Bush said. “They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.”
Well, we went to war primarily because we believed Saddam had WMDs, and in a pre-emptive strike less than 18 mos. after 9/11, it sounded like a damn good idea to me. Saddam was a nut.
Did other intelligence agencies “around the world” agree with “our asssessment of Saddam Hussein”? I hope they agreed he was a nut. Did they agree he had WMDs?
I don’t think the president’s speech upset Ted Kennedy. In fact, he just called the president and wanted to take him on a driving tour of some waterfront property. The president may even take him up on the offer–if he can find his flotation device.
Where have all the Lee Atwaters gone?
He wouldn’t be circling the wagons and acting like a loser in the face of all this bullshit criticism. Sometimes ya gotta start swingin.
WHO’S REWRITING HISTORY???
Bush, 10/1/2002:
Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq.
Bush, two days after the Iraq War Resolution:
But I am very firm in my desire to make sure that Saddam is disarmed. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully. The use of the military is my last choice, is my last desire.
McClellan, 11/2/2002:
This is about disarmament and this is a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to disarm. If he chooses not to do so peacefully, then the United States is prepared to act, with our friends, to do so by force. And we will do so forcefully and swiftly and decisively, as the President has outlined. But the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort.
Bush, 11/7/2002:
But some people won’t like it if he ends with a nuclear weapon and uses it. We have an obligation to lead. And I intend to assume that obligation to make the world more peaceful.
Terry, listen, there’s risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I’m concerned. The inaction creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful. And obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the differences. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully—don’t get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there’s a chance he may decide to do that.
And war is not my first choice, don’t—it’s my last choice. But nevertheless, it is a—it is an option in order to make the world a more peaceful place.
It’s too little, too late. And too pie-in-the-sky. Nothing Bush says is going to make a dent with the left; this is all for the benefit of swing voters, and while that’s fine and proper, it’s not going to unify anyone or make the debate any more “free-minded.” If he wants to daydream about an America where more than half the country supports the troops, okay, but that doesn’t make it any less of a daydream.
I don’t know why he’s playing the you-supported-the-war-too game with the Dems, either. It smacks of blame-sharing, which feeds right into the left’s insistence that the war is something to be apologized for. What Bush should be saying is that the Dems need to take a position, pro or con, and stick with it, because there won’t be any eleventh-hour credit-sharing later if Iraq stays on track and starts to prosper.
Paraphrasing the inestimable John Derbyshire, warring against Hussein because he had WMD’s was a good idea and warring against Hussein when the evidence only said he had WMD’s was a good idea.
The staggering, opportunistic, bald-faced mendacity of the Democrats is nearly as aggravating and dangerous as the fact that Hussein did actually possess tons of uranium, to say nothing of the half million he murdered. That he’ll add his name to the list of tyrants who’ve murdered nearly 170M innocents in the last 100 years and still gets the politically-enraged leftwing seditionists in this country to defend him staggers the mind.
tw: Small. Minds.
Nothing in those statements that are incompatible with what the admin believed at that point. I still believe that is exactly what he meant.
If you’re that good at mind-reading, what’s our next chapter in the WOT?
Yes, the taken-behind-the-woodshed fantasies are all humorous, but what we really want is for Democrats be made to answer questions without being let off the hook. Their own words snapping back in their mouths like a rubber glove would be plenty for me. Publicly refusing for a third time to answer a straight question would be fine, too.
That’s all I wanted in ‘98. For Clinton to be made to stand in the well of the Senate and answer questions.
<blockquote>That he’ll add his name to the list of tyrants who’ve murdered nearly 170M innocents in the last 100 years and still gets the politically-enraged leftwing seditionists in this country to defend him staggers the mind. </blockquoet>
Why does it surprise you? The Left has been doing this my entire life. They’ve never met an anti-America dictator or tryant that they won’t support.
Tried to send a trackback.
Blogosphere Reaction Roundup
I have absolutely no idea what that means. I admit, however, I am slightly aroused….
>>Paraphrasing the inestimable John Derbyshire, warring against Hussein because he had WMD’s was a good idea and warring against Hussein when the evidence only said he had WMD’s was a good idea.<<
i agree. but did the evidence really say he had wmds? why has colin powell backed down from his UN speech claims, which frankly is why i was convinced to support the invasion.
nobody is defending saddam (i hope). if being a tyrant asshole is the standard, we’re going to be invading lots of countries.
Yes, Jeff.
I’m here.
.
When I see Nancy Pelosi get pimp slabpped, I’ll get excited.
You don’t have the balls, punk. Neither does your idiot fratboy President. George W. Bush talks as big as the nerds on this blog is about as effective. So why don’t you sit back down and scratch your ass.
(That George, he shore helped Tim Kane get electorated, though, didn’t he?)
Are you serious?
Uh, ‘truth’. How, exactly, is this ‘rewriting history’? Stating that he didn’t want to go to war, and then finally going to war, are not mutually exclusive. At least, not in the real world.
Man, the last thing I remember out of Powell’s mouth was that he could have gone on for days had they let him, not that he didn’t beleive what he was saying. Do you have a copy to the full text of Powell denying his claims? Not just soundbytes as I’d like to see it in context.
It’s not the standard, so your point is moot. Being a tyrant asshole who give money and support to terrorists (notice the global word terrorists, not ‘Osama BinLaden of Al Qaeda’
and is beleivec to have the ability to disrupt the ME where we depend on so much of our oil, yeah, that’ll get our attention.
That’s all well and good, Jeff, but where’s the ‘dillo? It’s Friday, and around these parts, ‘dillos dance on Fridays.
You don’t have the balls, punk.
Nancy, is that you?
Beyond that rather easy shot though, what that things post tells us is that the Bush speech was effective. A good rule of thumb is “if the Left is screaming, keep doing what your doing, only faster and harder”.
Your point, truth? That we eventually (very eventually) used Bush’s stated last choice is no indictment of Bush’s intent, unless you have some evidence that the Bush administration forcibly restrained Hussein from seeking a peaceful resolution when he was utterly bent on one. Bear in mind, of course, that such peaceful resolution would have had to include full compliance with all requirements placed on him by the world community; otherwise it would’ve been the usual lame appeasement and posturing, and we would still not have been able to verify the Hussein regime’s WMD status, would still have had ample grounds to distrust his word, and would still have American troops patrolling the no-fly zone at significant cost and zero gain. Not to mention that the UN would still be the viper’s nest of corruption that we at least now know it to be, our “allies” the French would still be subsidizing their tourist industry with ill-gotten OFF gains, Syria would still be in Lebanon, and millions of Iraqis would still be living under a dictator who believed that wood chippers were a tool of state.
The drivel about not being able simultaneously to prevent and prepare for war? Is that your “truth”? There is no better prevention for war than determined readiness, physical and mental, for it, as Reagan lately demonstrated. That it doesn’t work every time is, again, not an indictment of the strategy – just the consequence of being an aggressive species. And given that the war had already been coming to us in various ways and guises since GW-I, it was high time we took the initiative away from at least one of our enemies.
Salve, veterans!
TW: should, as in, Antiwar folk should know better by now.
This is not an argument that Bush can win. The more attention he pays to these attacks, the more the lack of WMDs becomes what sticks in the public’s mind. At the end of the day (or more precisely November 2006), if the Iraq debate is still centered on how we got into that conflict, the Ds will have won (and will win in the ‘06 elections). The President needs to shift the attention to the following line from his speech:
The first thing that needs to be done is to clearly define “victory.” Emphasis on clearly. To me, the Administration’s main problem is that there is little agreement on what the ultimate objective is in Iraq and how we are going about achieving that. There needs to be more than trite catchphrases…”winning the war on terror”…”defeating the insurgents”…blahblahblah. If victory is an Iraqi government elected in democratic elections that is stable enough to defend itself, let’s say that in clear terms and show how we’re going about it. If victory is something else, tell us what it is. The American people will support a war when they understand the objectives and that it is being prosecuted in a way to achieve those objectives. The won’t support a war to achieve nebulous objectives.
Angry George wrote: “George W. Bush talks as big as the nerds on this blog is about as effective.”
Guilty as charged on the “nerd” accusation. I’ve been playing D&D since I was 8, and I really like Aqua Teen Hunger Force. But, I’m also an infantryman, a front-line combat vet with valor decorations and more experience at violence than 99.9% of my fellow counttymen. I comment rarely, because I prefer actions to words, and action is something I’m good at.
What was your point again?
It seems all of those on the left side of the Saddam/WMD argument forget history all too readily. It’s not a question of WHETHER Saddam had WMDs–he had them, as witnessed by his use of poison gas against the Kurds after Gulf War I and against the Iranians in the 1980-1988 war between Iran/Iraq.
The question is truly, “What did Saddam do with his WMDs?” And of course, he only played three-card monte the the totally inept UN inspectors for what, 12 years? How many more years should we have waited to make him verify that he had indeed destroyed his WMDs? And BTW, he agreed to destroy them as a condition of the ceasefire from Gulf War I.
Allah, I agree with you that Bush should avoid playing the blame game, but by pointing out that Democrats supported the war at the outset I think he’s playing directly to your second point. By reminding the Dems that they supported the war he’s pointing out to the public that they still can’t stake out a coherent position on Iraq–“I voted for it before I voted against it.” He also makes the case, albeit implicitly, that the Democrats are being opportunistic, which is quite disgusting when national security is at issue. As for taking the credit for our eventual success, the Dems don’t have any chance whatsover of glomming on to the victory parade at this point. Whether or not one agrees with the Democrats position(s) on Iraq, no sane person believes the Dems have done anything in the last two years to actually help.
Honestly, I think they could be in a tighter spot than they presently think. When we do eventually claim victory in Iraq, we as the victors shall write the war’s history. As an example, the Civil War was very costly and highly unpopular and Lincoln himself(no dipshit, btw) barely beat out McClellan for reelection, yet that’s all forgotten to most. And in the history of this epoch, the Democrats will be seen as opportunistic and dithering at best, and treasonous at worst. I think many of the smarter people in the Democratic Party know this, and so part of their strategy in the past two years has been to talk down the war in hopes of ending it early and in defeat for us.
But I won’t question their patriotism.
what that things post tells us is that the Bush speech was effective
Someone wisecracks on a blog and you think “the Left” is screaming? Don’t set your standards too high there, Cap’n.
A good rule of thumb is “if the Left is screaming, keep doing what your doing, only faster and harderâ€Â.
Unsurprisingly, you mistake temper-tantrums for politics.
You don’t have the balls, punk.
Shall I send you a picture?
sharp –
here is what i found about colin powell’s statements about the WMD claims recently. this was a 20/20 story, and yes it is only excerpts, so i can’t say it isn’t shaded. I can find something more detailed, I’ll post it.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1
. . .
“It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels “terrible” about the claims he made in that now-infamous address  assertions that later proved to be false.
When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, “Of course it will. It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”
He doesn’t blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.
“George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well,” he said.
Nonetheless, Powell said, some lower-level personnel in the intelligence community failed him and the country. “There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up. That devastated me,” he said.
Unsurprisingly, you mistake temper-tantrums for politics.
You mean like this?
“That’s all I wanted in ‘98. For Clinton to be made to stand in the well of the Senate and answer questions.”
I really wish we had some version of the Prime Minister’s questions.
If Iraq prospers (or if popular revolution breaks out anywhere else in the Middle East) leftists will have three storylines to choose from. Mark these down; you’ll hear all of ‘em.
1. “Iraq’s not really prospering.” Yeah, okay, it has a strong economy. And the terrorist attacks have slowed to a crawl. But there was a suicide bombing just the other day. And some of the laws passed by the Iraqi parliament slightly disadvantage women. And what about all the troops who died—does any of this bring them back? Etc.
2. “Okay, Iraq’s prospering, but the U.S. had nothing to do with it.” It was just a matter of time before Arab states got their act together. Iraq was ready for change. Bush’s gambit proves fortuitous timing, nothing more.
3. “Okay, Iraq’s prospering, and the U.S. had something to do with it, but it’s all in spite of Bush, not because of him.” The Chimperor did everything he could to drop the ball, but thanks to the heroic efforts of Iraqis and our troops–who we supported all along–America got the job done.
Expect to hear number three most often, as it’s the one for which the strongest case can be made.
And that’s why 57% of America and growing everyday think you unnuanced folks are hilarious!
But I’m not so pathetic to have to claim that you’re unpatriotic.
What’s your point, truth?
“The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.”
“UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.”
The lies of Colin Pow… oh wait. That would be the report of Hans Blix to the UN Security Council in January of 2003….
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/
milowent, nothing in there states that Powell knew the intelligence was incorrect at the time he was presenting it.
When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, damn straight you’d feel silly when you find out it’s a dromedary and you’ve already promised everyone peking duck for dinner.
If anything, he solidifies the fact that we thought the intelligence was correct.
Angry George,
Are you still around here sweetie? You left too soon this morning. You were on fire last night. I still can’t believe how much stuff you can fit in your ass. You are sexual dynamo. Gerbils are for amateurs! An 8 pound rabit? We’re talking professional!
I hope to pound your hippie, granola eating, terrorist loving bung-hole again in the near future.
XOXOXOXO
Your Turd Burglar
Never mind on my questioning of truth. Someone beat me to it.
But I see we have poll results being used as a way to prove the rightness/wrongness of a cause or effort. Those are my favorites.
Hmmm.
@ Allah
You forgot the 4th one.
Iraq was a complete mess until we Democrats got involved and fixed all those problems you Republicans created. Thank God for President Hillary as she turned Iraq around almost single-handedly.
I don’t suppose “truth” or any of the other trolls can point me to ONE statement from any western political figure who stated prior to the war the Iraq did NOT have WMDs?
You state that it was clear that he didn’t, yet not even the French were so stupid as to assert that. Why?
sharp – i didn’t mean to imply that Powell KNEW the intelligence was wrong when he made the speech.
depends what you mean by “we”. for me, yes, i trusted it. bush probably did too. but maybe those who were putting the evidence together should have questioned it more?
yeah, and if that happened to me at work, i’d get canned.
Sorry I didn’t mean to imply you did. I was just stating that, at the time we did what we did because of what we thought we knew. Yeah, it turned it turned out to be wrong.
Just like the CEO of my company shouldn’t be determining if the functions I write get their values by reference or not, Colin couldn’t verify every little bit of info himself and relied on those beneath him to do so. Although with that amount of failure, I’m sure someone higher up has a bit of blame to shoulder as well.
You clucking hens all runnin’ around here excited that the chimp read a new speech. Feel it’s the start of somethin’… A pushback against the dems. The chimp reads what he’s handed – reads pretty poorly. Why do you let bush define the republican party? And y’all sooo ANGRY! What would it take to make y’all happy?
ed—You’re right. Considering how well that argument worked for economic recovery in the 90s, we should certainly expect to hear it again vis-a-vis Iraq.
Fascinating thought experiment of the day: Imagine how media coverage of Iraq would have differed this year had Kerry been elected. Hold all facts about Iraq (constitutional ratification, a growing economy, increased training for troops) constant.
yeah, and if that happened to me at work, i’d get canned.
Well, flipping burgers doesn’t involve intelligence–false or otherwise–at all.
Sorry, cheap shot. Couldn’t resist–it’s the new normal of American politics. You actually made some good points.
Cheap hookers and a bottle of Wild Turkey.
What would it take to make y’all happy?
Oh, I don’t know? You drop dead?
But I’m not all that angry or anything. Punk.
Allah,
You’re too pessimistic. Reagan eventually got the credit for ending the Cold War. Sure, some idiots in the media still try to give Gorbachev all the credit(he deserves some), but victory is incredibly seductive to any narrative. That’s not politics; that’s human nature.
There you go again…
Say what you like about Reagan’s lack of intellect, but he sure seems smart next to the little shrub, or little bush as Hussain called him. Be sure y’all say your prayers tonight now
Uh, have you been reading this thread? Bush’s speech made us happy, moron. That’s the whole point of this conversation.
Oh, and more of this.
But child, if the little man’s speech made ya happy why ya still sound sooo ANGRY! Ain’t everythin’ goin’ y’way
I wish Bush would be a little more offensive against the media—and the advertizers who support biased media.
I think the White House needs an alternate press corps to set an alternative view of the important stories; and contrast their stories with those of MSM.
But “deeply irresponsible” is a good start.
I totally agree, “Liberty Dad”! But even if we can’t get an alternate press corp in the white house, can’t we force the current press corp to write what we want. Oh, “Liberty Dad”, great idea.
No, he didn’t. Any employer that would fire you for making a decision based on the information you have at hand is an idiot, regardless of how that information comes out.
And for “George”—you’re the one throwing a tantrum. Over the last five years, it’s become a predictive pattern—the better a piece of news for Bush, the more leftist trolls crawl out from under their dungheaps. This thread is more proof of that.
Same reason you turds have been on the anger kick for, what, 5 years now: it feels good.
It’s 4pm and I’m off work, so yeah. I mean, it’d be nice if the house could paint itself, but…
“Ain’t everythin’ goin’ y’way”? Do you actually imagine that people talk like that? (Sorry, “Do y’act’lly imag’n people talkn’ lik’ that?”)
Can someone sign up “early” for some remedial illiteracy classes?
if you think he was still hoping to do this peacefully on 11/7/2002, you have some reading to do:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html
Shock and Awe & Nothing are not the only options.
—-
Stay What Course??
“alternate press corps” – it’s called Fox News
Brother Floyd,
I have no idea what y’all jes said. But ifin you mean remedial LITERACY classes as opposed to them ILLITERACY ones, I jes might take y’up on that.
*I hope to pound your hippie, granola eating, terrorist loving bung-hole again in the near future.*
Made my Friday. Thanks John Kerry !
war on terror:
after we eliminate every insurgent, we’re gonna get rid of all those scary movies…
It’s worth pointing out that Saddam’s regime was, even if it was not keeping large stocks of chemical or biological weapons around, still very much in violation of the UNSC anti-WMD resolutions passed against it, specifically in regard to cooperation with verification of disarmament and especially in regard to missile technology.
JD:
Stay what course?
Stop being obtuse. You know exactly what course Bush has embarked upon. He reiterates it in speech after speech after speech.
You say there were alternatives between war and doing nothing, but like John Kerry, you’re a little light on the specifics. I suppose that’s the perorgative of useless whiners on the left but its no less irritating to the grown ups here, nevertheless.
Sorry, fellas. While he doubtless has a bit of the reptile about him, the president is not going to be able to regenerate another set of balls on this one. And no amount of you scoundrel’s impugning everyone’s patriotism or shrilly shouting “liar, liar,” when the facts are in–no WMD, no ties to AQ, and a clear intention to invade Iraq no matter what–will serve to fortify your lame duck.
In fact, it could come back to haunt ya’ll, what with 55% (and trending) of the country believing that we were intentionally misled into war. People may get to hankering for that investigation Senate Dems are pushing the screaming-and-clawing Repubs for. If you guys really believe all this “Big Lie†nonsense, what better way to expose it than to trot Cheney, Bolton, Libby, Feith, Rice and Hadley out before a Senate hearing. Hell, you could even have Bush testify with Cheney, holding hands, not under oath, and with the questions given beforehand, whatever you may think is fair. That should clear things up, shouldn’t it? At least, it would give the administration a reasonable chance to raise those “honest and trustworthy†numbers above Clinton’s.
And, Jeff, you speak of using “lies and misinformation to harm the country,†but how has the country been harmed? Sure, the gap between rich and poor is widening, and we’ve mortgaged our future through borrowing (from the Chi-Coms, for chrissakes), but as far as the war goes, nothing’s changed. We’re muddling through as always, due to poor planning and clueless priorities. The only harm from the war, other than the normal death and destruction, is to your party’s poll numbers, and hence the shrill, I guess. But that would mean that you identify your interests exclusively with your country’s and there can be nothing more anti-democratic than that.
Finally, as for Glenn Reynolds’ conjuring up some noble conservative agreement to refrain from questioning other’s patriotism, that is pure delusion. The guy himself does it regularly. Indeed, I’ve probably taken less shits over the last two years than he’s poo-poo’d someone or some group’s patriotism, and I do like my bran.
You forgot to mention Halliburton, Bloggernads.
“In fact, it could come back to haunt ya’ll, what with 55% (and trending) of the country believing that we were intentionally misled into war. “
Remember, there is nothing that Dems won’t do to get power. Including lying to the public and then using the public’s support for the lie. They will stop at nothing.
The only solution is to make sure the Left’s dishonesty is exposed across the land. I’m glad Bloggerhead came out and admitted his support for dishonesty.
We need more progressives to follow Bloggerhead’s lead and shout it to the stars that they are trying to lie to the public.
Powell on Meet the Press:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558
When I got to “no ties to AQ” I stopped taking you seriously, Bloggerhead. This is a lie. One that I’ve pointed out over and over again. Read the intelligence report.
And I love the pomo thinking that points to poll numbers—which are the result of a campaign of deliberate lies—as PROOF of the veracity of those lies.
How has this country been harmed? Are you serious? Well, for one thing, truth is no longer true. For another, one of our two parties has surrendered any semblance of good faith in a baldfaced attempt to take back power. Democracy depends on citizens making informed decisions based on fact.
How has this country been harmed?
Please. Give it a fucking rest, would you?
What Jeff said.
from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
Still waiting.
How about you, early or Bloggerhead?
I don’t suppose you can point me to ONE statement from any western political figure who stated prior to the war the Iraq did NOT have WMDs?
You state that it was clear that he didn’t, yet not even the French were so stupid as to assert that. Why?
These internets are amazing. I’m assuming all you bushie fans are over in Iraq, walking the talk. And yet your posts appear in almost realtime. These internets are supperdupper. Brazil is Big!
Come on ‘George is angry’. What’s the matter, you can dish it out but you can’t take it? Or did JohnKerry hit too close to home? Oh, I know, you were using the wifi at MickieD’s and had to go back to work at the frier. Send us some more wicked barbs during your next break. God, but I luv a good cat fight.
Another chickenhawk charge from an anonymous pussy who would shit his pants were the military actually placed in charge of foreign policy, which is what the logic of the chickenhawk argument demands.
And really, screw those old white men who found it wise to give civilians control of the military.
Now it matters who you get the info from??
I’m an independant who would take Reagan in his present state over GW who never fails to look stupid; some of you would rather hang on to party rather than truth.
Hey Brother,
Who are you calling anonymous?
I’m not your brother, pussy. And it’s time somebody pointed out to you that calling other people cowards while hiding behind an anonymous handle and trolling rightwing sites is, well, pretty fucking cowardly.
For those who didn’t read the link above: RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into warMichael Smith
I haven’t had the time to read the transcript of the speech yet, but I’ll be sure to do that ASAP. It must have been a good one, it sure has the moonbats swarming. To bad all they have are the same old shrill lies, like the trusty “chickenhawk” maneuver.
TW:”expect”, as in what more can one, really.
Oh ok, gee, I wonder why your bro’s over there on the left are called liars.
Tell us all, who are our soldiers fighting RIGHT FUCKING NOW?
I am surmising you are allied with terrorists, sorry, but that’s the only reasonable explanation for your lies and subterfuge.
You douchebag.
seems cowardly to me to only want to hear your own opinion.
Oh you are too my brother
But I didn’t call you or anyone else a coward. I just checked my posts and nowhere did I use that word. If you’re serving your country you can’t be a coward.
Oh wait…you mean your not in Iraq? Holy Crap, I guess that does make you kinda yeller. Hmm, Goldstein – is that Jewish?
…he said, putting up his 10th comment or thereabouts, thereby giving lie to his own claim.
Irony is lost of you people, isn’t it, JD?
“if being a tyrant asshole is the standard, we’re going to be invading lots of countries.”
All in good time. And the idea of starting with Iraq was that our actions might convince some other tyrants to start changing their acts, or encouraging their people to force their tyrants to change their acts.
Seems to be working.
It must be so tiresome for all you guys to constantly go back to bookmarked sites, google searches and the like to keep coming up with documentation that proves what so many of us acknowledge.
My hat’s off to you all, but isn’t there some site, somewhere, that has all of these inconvenient facts proving the left wrong in one big parcel? We can just throw up the link and say “For the (hundredth, thousandth, etc.) time, go here and sift through it yourselves.”
Just wondering.
tw: course – stay it.
Oh, is it time for the tolerant left to break out the Jew thing now?
You are a pussy, early.
Re: chickenhawk.
Since our troops voted for Bush over Kerry by 4-1, and since those who have done a tour in Iraq have re-upped at 3x the rate of military not in Iraq, we can assume that if only those who serve in Iraq get to have an opinion, we are staying in Iraq until the job is done.
Uh,no.
What matters is that the TRUTH is that Hussein had WMDs. The TRUTH is that in the late 90s and early 00s NOBODY from the west (who doesn’t troll for dates at Burger King) ever made a statement questioning the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
That is the TRUTH.
So how about it early, want to take a shot?
Eh, what’s a “jew thing”, or is it jew “thing”.
Or “jew” thing?
some of you would rather hang on to party rather than truth.
Get over yourself, pal. As someone who has read Jeff’s blog since he resumed blogging, I’ve seen plenty of thoughtful criticism of Bush. You know, something more substantive than yours.
He’s talking about me, kelly.
Somehow, Bush saying the exact same thing that every other western world leader said about Iraq is somehow considered lying.
“isn’t there some site, somewhere, that has all of these inconvenient facts proving the left wrong in one big parcel? “
Lots. (And I bookmarked all of them and can’t find them right now…..) But it doesn’t matter. I’ve pointed out those sites and they just ignore them.
me: “Many on the left have been lying about the administration cooking prewar intelligence.”
early the anonymous troll: “You fightin’ in Iraq, Jewboy?”
I say it again, early. You’re a pussy. And so long as you keep posting anonymously, I’m just going to picture your taunts coming out of flapping pink labia.
Which makes it kind of sexy.