|
OT Analysis of Bush Speech
In a primetime address to the nation on Iraq last night, Bush wasted a
precious opportunity to level with the American public about the struggle we face ahead of us in Iraq, the mistakes that have been made, and the need to change course. Instead, we heard a president who had only two objectives on his mind: 1) wrap 9-11 and Iraq together to help bolster his public approval and support for the war; and 2) stubbornly refuse to change course. As the New York Times noted in an editorial today, Bush "raise[d] the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." The speech "offered few new ideas for dealing with an insurgency that has claimed more than 1,700 American lives" and "rejected any change in course, ruling out either a deadline for troop withdrawals or an increase in troop levels." HOW BUSH TURNED IRAQ INTO A TERRORIST TRAINING GROUND: The thrust of President Bush's address last night was that the Iraq war has now become the "latest battlefield" in the war on terror, and that we must "defeat [the terrorists] abroad before they attack us at home." There is little doubt, as a new CIA report concludes and director Porter Goss said previously, that Iraq has become the new Afghanistan -- the training ground for the next generation of insurgent fighters. But Iraq certainly wasn't this type of breeding ground before the war. In fact, one rationale Bush proffered for the war was to prevent Iraq from becoming "a training ground" for terrorists. Bush said in November 2002: "Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground..." We don't have to imagine anymore; Bush's war has made it a reality due to the whole host of mistakes that were made in the post-war phase. THE 9-11 STRATEGY: Last night, President Bush called on Americans to remember "the lessons of September 11th." Coming on the heels of Karl Rove's politicization of the 9-11 attacks, it seems clear the White House has turned to the aid of that tragic day to help prop up a reeling president. In a speech littered with references to 9-11, Bush circumvented the real problems facing U.S. forces in Iraq by attempting to inspire imagery of another attack on our homeland. The Washington Post helped propagate Bush's deception: "[C]ritics long have accused Bush of falsely drawing a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11 as a way to justify the original decision to launch the war in Iraq. That was not the point Bush made last night." Oh really? Here's what Bush said last night: "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001." The argument that we had to go to war in Iraq because we were attacked on 9-11 is blatantly false. And Bush knows it -- he previously said he "couldn't make that claim" that Iraq was connected to 9-11 and that he had "no evidence" that Saddam was connected to 9-11. Yet, it appears that not everyone has caught on to the deception. BUSH FAILED TO BE CANDID ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEMS: As the daily toll of America's sacrifice in lives and dollars in Iraq continues to increase, Bush did little last night to allay the fears of those who see no end in sight. Moreover, he gave little impression that he understands the nature of the insurgency raging in Iraq. Bush declined to weigh in on the dispute between Rumsfeld and Cheney about whether the insurgency is in its "last throes" or will last another decade. He described the insurgents as filled with "blind hatred" yet he did not comment on Rumsfeld's confirmation that the U.S. is now negotiating with the those insurgents. Bush failed to admit any mistakes that have been made (and thus give any indication that he has corrected course), and he failed to explain any new strategy for winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, defeating the terrorist insurgents, reconstructing Iraq, and bringing our troops home. BUSH RECYCLED OLD IDEAS AS "NEW": Bush claimed last night to offer "three new steps" which weren't new at all. His supposed three new ideas were to "partner coalition units with Iraqi units," embed "transition teams" inside Iraqi units (if you don't know the difference between those two, you're not alone), and third, work with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to "coordinate anti-terrorism operations" (which is really newsworthy only because the coordination apparently wasn't taking place before). In May 2004, Bush delivered a much-hyped speech at the Army War College that was supposed to outline "specific steps" for achieving our goals in Iraq. In that address, he said we were working with Iraqi forces to establish both a "chain of command" and an improved "vetting and training" process. Bush also said in that May 2004 speech that "America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government." The media wasn't fooled into thinking that Bush was offering anything new last night. The New York Times reported, Bush "offer[ed] no new strategies in a war that has now stretched for 25 months," and he delivered what was "in essence, a repeat of a speech he delivered 13 months ago...during an appearance at the Army War College." |
What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with
boats? |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with boats? It's All About 9/11 The president links Iraq and al Qaeda - and the usual suspects moan. "The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had "nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen's words "offended" about use of the 9/11 "trump card." If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation. And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it's because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they've been invited to dig in for years. The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that's what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It's not about the great experiment in democratization - as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It's about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us. " Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp |
*JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make, calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not him? What does it have to do with boats? Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the *OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what that means? |
wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make, calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not him? What does it have to do with boats? Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the *OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what that means? Get help Kevin. You need it. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make, calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not him? What does it have to do with boats? Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the *OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what that means? Get help Kevin. You need it. Yeah...that bitch slapping has really pushed him over the edge. |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:27:09 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:
It's about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us. " Yup, sure and bin Laden is *still* bin Missin'. |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:57:19 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
Get help Kevin. You need it. That's telling him, moped man. Swarm and destroy!!!! bb |
P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with boats? It's All About 9/11 The president links Iraq and al Qaeda - and the usual suspects moan. "The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had "nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen's words "offended" about use of the 9/11 "trump card." If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation. (snip) No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says By Greg Miller * Los Angeles Times September 18, 2003 President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot. Bush's statement was the latest in a flurry of remarks this week by top administration officials after Vice President Dick Cheney resurrected a number of contentious allegations about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties." |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make, calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not him? What does it have to do with boats? Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the *OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what that means? Get help Kevin. You need it. Ah, let's recap... YOU continue to reply to me, calling me Kevin. You have no facts to back that up. YOU aren't bright enough to figure out that I'm not him. YOU aren't bright enough to understand that I respond because you are replying DIRECTLY to me. You aren't bright enough to understand that OT before a thread title would indicate it's OFF TOPIC....yet you think someone else "needs help"? |
P. Fritz wrote: "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? I'm not Kevin, ****stain. Why do you reply to posts that I make, calling me Kevin? Are you too ****ing stupid to figure out that I'm not him? What does it have to do with boats? Can't figure it out, huh? ****stain, did you happen to even NOTICE the *OT* before the title? Or are you too ****ing dim to understand what that means? Get help Kevin. You need it. Yeah...that bitch slapping has really pushed him over the edge. Fritz, get it straight, idiot. I'd MAKE you MY bitch. Get it? |
*JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with boats? Jim, what does YOUR posts have to do with boats? Notice below, your girlfriend, Fritz isn't on topic, why don't you chastise HIM???? |
wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with boats? Jim, what does YOUR posts have to do with boats? Notice below, your girlfriend, Fritz isn't on topic, why don't you chastise HIM???? *You* were the one who started to chastise folks posting OT earlier this week. Right after that, I started asking you the same the exact question you posed to them......."What does this have to do with boats". Understand Kevin? |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with boats? Jim, what does YOUR posts have to do with boats? Notice below, your girlfriend, Fritz isn't on topic, why don't you chastise HIM???? *You* were the one who started to chastise folks posting OT earlier this week. Right after that, I started asking you the same the exact question you posed to them......."What does this have to do with boats". Understand Kevin? Haha!! AGAIN, showing just how stupid you are!!!! The ONLY people that I said anything similar to "what does this have to do with boats" are the people who vowed to change the tone of the group, to not post off topic, OR chastised other people. Now, seeing how you are too ****ing ignorant to understand a sentence as simple as "I'm not Kevin", I know that you are also too damned stupid to understand this. Perhaps you can get your **** buddy, Fritz, to take over for you. |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with boats? Jim, what does YOUR posts have to do with boats? Notice below, your girlfriend, Fritz isn't on topic, why don't you chastise HIM???? *You* were the one who started to chastise folks posting OT earlier this week. Right after that, I started asking you the same the exact question you posed to them......."What does this have to do with boats". Understand Kevin? I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are too ****ing stupid to ask him directly, and instead reply to ME, you are dead wrong. WRONG, as usual, get it, ****stain? Now, you forgot to answer, how come you don't chastise your girlfriends, Fritz and JohnH for posting off topic? How come you don't live up to your vow to quit lying and posting childish insults? Before you ask, asshole, I never, ever made such a vow, but YOU DID. Another lie, huh? |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... wrote: *JimH* wrote: wrote in message glegroups.com... *JimH* wrote: What is the purpose of this thread Kevin? What does it have to do with boats? Jim, what does YOUR posts have to do with boats? Notice below, your girlfriend, Fritz isn't on topic, why don't you chastise HIM???? *You* were the one who started to chastise folks posting OT earlier this week. Right after that, I started asking you the same the exact question you posed to them......."What does this have to do with boats". Understand Kevin? I'm not Kevin, but seeing how you are too ****ing stupid to ask him directly, and instead reply to ME, you are dead wrong. WRONG, as usual, get it, ****stain? Wait a minute, fella. When did Hert move his way up from pondscum? Your continued obsession with me is getting old Krause. As soon as you sincerely confess that you lied when you claimed I threatened you and your wife, I'll put you back on the shelf. Otherwise, in the famous last words of a close grammar school friend who recently passed: ESAD. It was no lie so there is nothing to confess. You have demonstrated time and time again to this NG the extent to which you have stalked me and my wife and the threats you made to us were real. I could care less where you place me. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com