I’d say yes. If everyone kept their mouth shut Bush would have the political clout to possibly start another war. Now he doesn’t have a shot to do so.
If I think soldiers are becoming unsafe because well-based accusations are thrown at the president, then in that case we better get another president sooner rather than later. Resignation, Impeachment, or making him an even bigger lame duck are the options.
Funny that you ignore that soldiers also died then and now to protect those options.
Sam Stone:
Nice, that writer is using the evidence from the big guys that failed to get the intelligence right, to then say the critics of the intelligence are wrong (remember that independent commissions still depend on what the intelligence community tells to them). It is also worth noticing that the Downing Street Memos were released after the Butler report.
Great timeline here: http://downingstreetmemo.com/timeline/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408030002
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004909.php
Regarding Wilson this Norman Podhoretz is lying:
In real time no, we’re committed to nation building and Iraq so the current action(s) will have to play out. Beyond this (IMO) the extent to which that the current Administration can be brought to account for questionable assertions it made leading up the war, will potentially act as a useful object lesson for any subsequent administrations considering forays into war or violent foreign entanglements, without all the potential outcomes being weighed and considered.
In practical terms how do you perceive, in terms of specific actions against them, that a given solider on the ground in Iraq is really going to be made less safe by criticizing Bush. If anything it would potentially show the Iraqis that democratic institutions and the rule of law do work
Delusional. He believes what he says. Its really almost the only answer, because the lies are not cunning enough. Damn near everything the man said during that speech flies in the face of documented fact. And its all openly available to anyone with the slightest effort!
It only makes sense if one assumes that there is no effort being made to convince the skeptical, but merely to give a pretense of legitimacy to “arguments” that have no connection to fact. It is intended to reassure a wavering base, who’s support slips through his fingers like so much sand.
Your talking abot soldiers in a hypothetical war. How about the soldiers that are in a REAL war, now?
Please explain.
I categorically reject any attempt to shift the blame for the results of poor policy decisions from those that made the decisions to those that reported them. The reason our troops are dying over there is not becuase the media reported the tortures that went on or other mistakes by this adminstraion. The reason they are dying is becuase this administration made those mistakes and allowed the torture to happen.
mag, this is so obvious its painful to have to point it out to you. If we follow your advice, all a scoundrel of a President has to do is stick some soldiers in harms way, and he’s instantly immune from criticism.
Surely you see that this does for stupid what Stonehenge does for rocks?
I think it encourages the terrorists to persist and makes it easier to recruit more. Let’s look at the extreme other end of the spectrum. Let’s make believe that the left was on board with the war, that we were as unified as during WWII. Press included. Let’s also make believe that France and Germany, after registeriing their doubts, joined us at that very last hour. So, if the whole US and the western powers were fervently behind the war, do you think that it would be easier or more difficult to recruit you (making believe you are a twenty-year-old Iraqi)? As one of the insurgency, would you view your chances of success greater or less than you view it now? Do you think it would be easier or more difficult to attract mercenary terrorists from neighboring countries if we—the US and the West—had a completely unified front?
I think the last part of your answer does point to a valuable tool in the prosecution of the war. That’s why we should stick to the rule of law. Back on the eve of the American Revolution, I think John Adams won America some friends in England when he successfully defended an English soldier accused of murder. Doing the right thing is not only moral, but also a valuable tool in winning hearts and minds.
But you’re avoiding the issue. To rephrase based on your answer, shouldn’t the criteria be: now that they’re over there, what actions on our part will cause fewer of them to die?
I think it is pollyannish to believe that the actions we take here will have no effect on the reality of our young men and women in the field.
Soldiers have died then and now to protect our version of democracy, you are ignoring that that also means that they died to protect the right to investigate the President, to impeach him, or to criticize him even in a time of war.
And for that, I salute them regardless of their opinions:
Yes and those actions that are taken by our administration that are causing more of them to die need to be brought into the public light so they can be stopped.
Seconded what **elucidator ** said, besides magellan01, you are in reality highjacking the thread, deal with the issue or admit that you just want to avoid the information that shows that we can not trust the blind man that lead us to this mess. To find a solution, other team needs to take over, and team Bush is not the one since even today the solutions they are following are based on the same sources that gave us the war in the same place, or did you miss that Chalabi is back?
I think it requires huge balls to address these questions with quotes and comments regurgitated from e-mail forwards and message board posts! We’ve heard all this before - Bush’s “rewriting history” line is not new either - so I think it’s brassy, or dumb, of him to finally address this issue and then choose to do so in this manner. I’m ignoring for now the question of what he really believes or believed, and why, and when. I simply don’t understand why he would finally respond to all these things, and then just repeat himself instead of saying anything specific in response. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Personally, I have generally refrained from calling Bush a liar. But I think the case for war was made in a dishonest manner, and some of the links here are pretty solid support for that.
First, it should be hard to go to war. And the fact is that this war cannot be hung solely on his head. Congress signed on. But even after the troops are there, if the war is THAT dumb and idea and we should extricate ourselves, it’s fairly easy: congress can just stop funding it. Now it may take some balls on their part (and that might very well be a problem) but the fact remains is that there is a way to pull back.
So, while the troops are there, we are behind them. Then, Senators and Congressmen (who have received millions of letters communicating their insistence that the war end), withhold funding, and the troops are brought back. Once the troops are back out of harm’s way, it’s open season on the President. Fire him, impeach him, lock him up, string him up, whatever.
My only point is that our soldiers over there are in a real war, with real bullets, bombs, and people who want to kill, burn and behead them. We sent them there. We owe them our support. In the end, a really do think that it is that black and white.
Yes, it takes some effective tools off the table, but I’m much more concerned about the safety and morale of those young men and women than I am about the indignation I or my neighbors might feel as we slouch in front of our TVs or sip lattes at the cozy Starbucks on the corner.
An ignorant of history you are. Nixon would be proud though.
Before you reply, remember that during the time Nixon began to be investigated and then resigned, military advisors and Marines, who were protecting U.S. installations where still in Vietnam.
I’m somewhat confused as to the mechanism by which Congress would arrive at a decision to suspend payment for the war. If no-one is allowed to articulate their beliefs for why the troops should not be there, how will this public mood register with Congress? And, if the Congressmen are not permitted to debate the issue, how will they arrive at the decision?
I don’t understand (because this doesn’t make sense). If our, according to you, spoiled and lazy asses complain, then we’re endangering the troops. But if Congress stops funding the war, that’s absolutely fine?
I swear it’s like BushCo raided the Dope for ideas, cribbing his talking points from the all the Bush apologists. That speech was such an eerie rehash of old debates here. Kudos, at the very least, for anticipating the specious arguments our fearless cheater would use to absolve himself.
Don’t have much to add beyond the 37 gazillion threads where we’ve examined the evidence in painful detail, and found BushCo’s justifications to be either massively incompetent or overblown.
Basically, if you charitably ignore the history that completely refutes many of his points, the rest of his counterattack amounts to “you believed my bullshit, so shame on you”.
Not unexpected from the prick, but still pretty galling all the same.