Acidus wrote:

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise 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. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

Sure dude. Your hatred for Bush makes you say really stupid things.

ibenez wrote:

Sure dude. Your hatred for Bush makes you say really stupid things.

Oh really?

-Rumsfield: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/)

-Lynne Jones, Labour Party (Tony Blair's party) lawmaker: any attempt to suggest that Iraq was a response to the September 11 attacks was "absolute nonsense." "There is absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/bush.intl/)

And the grand trump of all, in Sept 2003:
President Bush: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)

Sure ibenez, Your Hatred of the Truth makes you say really stupid things. You can suck it now.

Acidus wrote:

ibenez wrote:

Sure dude. Your hatred for Bush makes you say really stupid things.

Oh really?

-Rumsfield: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/)

Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda. The reports of these contacts have been increasing since 1998. We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We do have -- I believe it's one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members. There is, I'm told, also some other information of varying degrees of reliability that supoprts that conclusion of their cooperation."
Source: Defense Department Regular Briefing, Defense Department (9/26/2002).

And the grand trump of all, in Sept 2003:
President Bush: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

Sure ibenez, Your Hatred of the Truth makes you say really stupid things. You can suck it now.

Truth??? There is no truth.

Acidus wrote:

ibenez wrote:

Sure dude. Your hatred for Bush makes you say really stupid things.

Oh really?

-Rumsfield: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/)

-Lynne Jones, Labour Party (Tony Blair's party) lawmaker: any attempt to suggest that Iraq was a response to the September 11 attacks was "absolute nonsense." "There is absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/bush.intl/)

And the grand trump of all, in Sept 2003:
President Bush: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)

Sure ibenez, Your Hatred of the Truth makes you say really stupid things. You can suck it now.

Oooookay. Whatever you say dude. :)

ibenez wrote:

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

Sure dude. Your hatred for Bush makes you say really stupid things.

I understand your confusion now. There have always been people wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq. The question is whether this reflects the opinion of the nation broadly. The recent Senate hearing seemed to indicate that even Republicans felt that it does reflect the opinion of the nation. Why has this point of view been rejected by Republicans until just now? Has there been a sudden shift in public opinion? I don't sense that there has been.

It has taken me a few days to digest this hearing. I think I understand now.

There is a specific reason that this point of view is suddenly being accepted, and it is because its in our interest to accept it now. The more Americans are unhappy about their involvement with the Iraq war, the more it will look like we're going to pull out. The more it looks like we're going to pull out, the more Iraq will realise that they are going to have to deal with the domestic security problems on their own, or live with them forever. The faster they get that, the faster they'll become a strong, independent nation. If we let their government hide behind our skirt they'll never have the strength to deal with the difficult international politics in the region.

Nations are founded upon shared experience. They didn't overthrow Saddam. They won't be able to look back on their history, as we do, and say "we did it." They need a formative experience. This insurgency is that experience. If they can overcome it, it will shape their national identity. We can't do it for them. If we do their country won't mean anything to them.

I'll bet the Republicans would be willing to sacrifice the 2008 presidential election if it meant scaring the Iraqis into taking responsibility for themselves, but in any event if they have to do something with makes them look bad politically, like getting a large precentage of Americans to think that Iraq is not a good place for our military to be, now is the time to do it, when they've got several years before having to face public opinion in the ballot box.

You're going to hear more of this kind of thinking. Frogs boil slow, this hearing was the first step.

Acidus wrote:

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise 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. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

God bless the NYT. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the speech. I knew it would be the same honey-coated 9/11 dribble that would only serve to infuriate me. Thank goodness, well, for TNT's nightly 'Law and Order' marathons, but also for the basic TV stations that sent a clear message by not carrying the speech. Even Bush's fanatic[-ally misguided] supporter, Big Business, is tired of his rhetoric.

-janelane, composed