 Kore7 says: Asked whether he agreed with Friedman's summary, Bush said, "He could be right. ... There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." Even if the ramp up in violence was enough to make people in the U.S. sick of Bush, and was enough to pull out of Iraq, why do people think that it will be any better after we're gone? Also, are we allowing the taleban or the revolters to sway our elections? Are we allowing them to manipulate us? And this comment: we all remember the Tet Offensive was a turning point when wedoh? "They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort," Bush said.Um, lets call it what it is..."chaos" or "deaths of american soldiers" So, what that should really say is, "They believe that if they can kill enough american soldiers, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort." Very astute observation Mr. President. The bottom line is the #1 reason we were given for invading Iraq was the weapons of mass destruction. Here we are now with a mess on our hands just like Vietnam in that respect. I think gradual withdrawal replaced with third-party Arab peacemakers who understand the Iraqi people would be one viable solution. No, I don't believe WMD was the "#1" reason we went into Iraq; it was one of the reasons and that was based on the assessment of not just our intelligence community but that of other countrys' intelligence also. Saddam was killing thousands and thousands of Iraqis with impunity (don't the Democrats want us to go into certain African countries and stop their genocide?) and he had, for 11 yrs. violated the UN resolutions AND we've learned, prospered from criminal behavior of UN members. I think the President was agreeing that Iraq "could" be compared to Vietnam IF the American population became so anti-Iraq and created social upheaval over our policy there, that it's Administration (this one... Weapons of mass destruction were the #1 reason we were given for invading Iraq. However, you are right that WMD was not the #1 reason for invading Iraq. http://www.newwaveinstruments.com/politics/iraq_war/the_real_reason_for_war_with_iraq.htm That's odd....I heard it from the President's own lips as he addressed the nation. As I've realized as I've hung out around here, people interpret the world's events through the prism of their world-view. I freely admit that my view is quite different from most of the clippers who participate here. Typical of the mess we're in. This misrepresentation is the result of a perfect storm of cynical, disingenuous, cleverness on the part of the press, and pathetic bumbling inarticulateness of the President. Sick of the whole thing. Be nice Godfrey....:~); look what the man had to work with. The media, which believes the US deserved to be attacked, an intelligence community that worked against each other (or failed to work at all), liars like Joe Wilson with his own personal vendetta, Congress with the likes of Murtha, a corrupt-to-the-core UN, a weak and apathetic Europe, rag-tag but impassioned Islamists who rushed into Iraq to draw the line in the sand, talking heads constantly *trying* to make Iraq into a Vietnam, etc...... And as I keep saying, the man isn't God and is not omniscient. 20/20 hindsight often makes things more clear, right? Since I won my tennis match this morning and am feeling *fine*, I'll even allow that for Clinton also. I'm not talking about 20/20 hindsight, I'm talking about 20/20 in real time. The ability to think on your feet independent of pressures and circumstance, and to be able to articulate your thinking and responses cleanly, clearly, with conviction, with consistency, confidence and strength. |
View the Top Clips from October 20, 2006
|
||
|
|
|||
