No I don’t. Reread it. I am citing an MSNBC article, while he is citing some Op Ed.
I think you are confused. Very confused about a great many things, but especially confused about this thread. Johnny L.A. is playing fast and loose with the ‘quotes’, not FinnAgain.
I graciously accept your apology.
I beg your pardon?
You will have it in short order, no doubt. Friend Brutus is perfectly willing to forgive your errors. He is, as has been herein demonstrated, blessed with a nearly inexhaustible capacity to forgive.
The coding in the first bit of your post was odd. so I hope I get the first bit right.
Proooooooooooooooooooooooooooven?
Yes, I have disproven something and if you’d stop with the rationalizing of Bush’s position you’d realize it.
If there was no urgency, there was also no reason not to wait 6-8 months. So, the fact that summer was coming meant nothing. Without urgency there is a lifetime of summers.
Why? No WMD. No terrorists (please don’t bring up the Palestinians, just another red herring I’ll have to deal with). No plan for civil administration. No ability to win the peace. Improperly equipped forces. Inufficient forces. Etc…
Earlier? Why go at all? And if you are going, why go even earlier than you did when you weren’t ready yet?
Yes, I for one want more magick in government. As above, so below and all that, ya know? ~yawns~
Maybe, I understand that there are production times and queues, but since this war wasn’t urgent we should’ve taken the time to at least give our troops what they needed before we sent them to kill and die.
I considered whether or not to include that as a cite. In the end, this
made up my mind.
Twenty six years as a CIA analyst goes to credability, in my book.
Op-ed piece or not.
Now, as to your cite, where does it say that SH was producing WMD “left and right?” Talking about the ‘slam dunk’ bit, the way I read that is that it would be easy to convince the American people, which, was of course the question it was answering. YMMV.
Thus, if you neglect the inner circle, you have, essentially, given up on fighting AQ. Or, if you haven’t given up, you’ve bungled it. We know enough in war to take about C&C facilities asap. You think we’ve forgotten it in this guerilla grudgematch?
Oh and, this ‘leftie’…
(I’ve voted Republican before, probably will again, don’t hold with either party’s platform, yada yada yada. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Pit thread)
…didn’t want a ‘feel good’ strategy.
Personally I thought Bush should’ve realized this was a new war and couldn’t be fought like previous wars. I believe he should’ve eliminated the EO banning assasinations and created /upgraded whatever special forces units were necessary to conduct a global invisible war. I believe that by strengthening ties with our allies and coordinating the flow of information, we would have been able to use police to capture the cells we detected.
But yes, as a New Yorker, it would make me feel good to see Bin Laden captured and given a fair trial. And if found guilty, sit to rot for the rest of his life in a tiny cell.
Yes, the quote itself was overblown and false-to-facts.
However, if someone voted on ‘moral values’ and ignored Iraq, that is indeed the practical ramification.
All this begging and apologizing in one thread! Geez. I grant you pardon. Go forth, and sin no more.
What you claim GW said:
He never actually said that, did he?
You could have just linked to the WaPo transcript of the interview.
The exchage in question:
Hrmmm. Nothing about GWs purported refusal to take responsibility for his actions.
If only they would stop thinking with their ‘defense rods’! 
Brutus, please notice that Bush is not saying that his Administration should not have to explain their actions and decisions because of the election. He is saying that they shouldn’t have to explain their mistakes and misjudgments.
Do you honestly not see the difference?
He and the other people in his administration are public servants. Why should they not be held accountable? (I’m talking about reasonable and rational explanations for their choices and admissions of mistakes made and remedies sought.)
If they are not accountable to the people, then our domestic tranquility my soon “vanish from the earth.”
Of course they wouldn’t.
BTW…
Just how many color alerts have we seen since the election?
:rolleyes:
Available blood supply, and all, doncha know. 
From your link:
In other words:
‘Why hasn’t anyone been held accountable?’
‘Since we won the election, there is no need for us to be held accountable.’
As for the OP, I’m not making it up. I provided a link to an ‘approved’ source, and the same information was also broadcast on CNN Headline News.
You misspelled ‘homaseckshul’.
No, he doesn’t say that, Zoe.
The question from WaPo: (various boldings and colorings are mine.)
And what Dubya said:
He has explained himself and his administrations actions for the previous 4 years, and the people held him accountable on it. What are you guys looking for out of GW? (Other than a resignation!) Some sort of trial or hearings?
They are accountable. I suspect not in the way that would make some of you happy, but the whole point to the first portion of W’s answer is that when it came time for the ultimate accountability (for a democracy), he passed the test.
As far as I can tell, NONE. In the summer and fall prior to the election, well I stopped counting. :rolleyes:
Brutus
What about the rest of the administration? (Namely, Rumsfeld?) Bush has the power to hold the people under him accountable for egregious mistakes they have made, and has chosen not to do so. (Like all the CIA officials who fed him misinformation? And whatever the fuck happened to the outers of Valerie Plame? And who the hell is responsible for those missing explosives? And so and so forth?) And now he has a perfect excuse to avoid doing what a leader is supposed to do. That excuse being Election 2004.
It’s cheap and…lame, for a lack of a better word. But the saddest thing is that it is not surprising. Bush wants everyone to believe that he has a mandate to do whatever the hell he wants. He holds up the election results as proof of his infallibility. He can do no wrong BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.
Did all those undecideds who shrugged and cast their vote for Bush do so knowing that he was just going to turn around and use their ballots to wipe the shit off his ass?
It’s just like John Kerry said: Bush is only going to give us more of the same. To do otherwise–to aspire for improvement and push for change–is to admit that the previous 4 years were not perfect. And that is an admission that George is too stubborn to make.
“Party of Personal Responsibility” my ass.
Whaddaya mean, friend? Can’t you see that he’s insisting responsibility lies with the ultimate decision-makers - the 49.3% of us who voted against him, thereby depriving him of being reappointed as king unanimously?
Being re-elected means never having to say you’re responsible.
Hey, how come Clinton didn’t get the same deal? :rolleyes:
Brutus – I’m going to take my turn trying to explain this to you, because I believe you’re redeemable. There’s a very basic principle involved which you’ve managed to avoid discussing.
First, let’s sweep aside the other issues. Forget that Bush was barely reelected, in the worst showing ever for an incumbent wartime President.
Second, let’s ignore for the moment the question of whether Bush has made huge blunders, told egregious lies, committed criminal acts, etc. He has, but that’s not germane to the central point of the OP.
Which is –
Being reelected does not in any way diminish a President’s accountability. Being Commander in Chief is not the same as being a dictator to the civilian population. He is a public servant, and obligated to account for his actions and be able to defend his decisions; it’s part of the job.
Please try to absorb this concept. See if this helps: ask yourself whether you think Bill Clinton, who was reelected by a wide margin, should not have had to answer for any of his mistakes.
Of course not, because re-election gave him a mandate and complete absolution. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Right. This isn’t working. Let me sketch out a timeline for you guys.
Do you guys get that? Do you guys understand that the issue of Iraq was on the table during the elections, and GW recieved more votes from the people (and EC) than did Kerry? It doesn’t get more ‘accountable’ than that. By the measure of the laws of our land, GW was held to account for the action in Iraq.
I suspect that you guys won’t have your wanton accountability-lust sated until there are trials or impeachment proceedings or something. Not going to happen, and all the misquoting and taking out of context in the world won’t change that.
Brutus, that was a fair response.
Look again at what you quoted:
Only some of the American people chose him – a slim majority of the voting Americans chose him to be President. What about the millions of Americans who didn’t chose him? And I don’t think that the people who voted for him have said that they no longer demand an accounting. If you hire someone for a job, that person is constantly accountable for doing a good job. She or he can’t just rest on one halfway supportive vote by the Board of Directors.
And certainly the majority is not supportive of the war efforts as they are now. They support the troops, but are beginning to question the decisions of the White House and the Defense Department.
What would satisfy me is not as drastic as what you may be projecting. I want the torture to stop. I want our country to stop trying to find loopholes around the Geneva Conventions. I want our Constitution preserved. I want the DOD not to have to wait for a reporter to prompt a Tennessee soldier to ask a question about armored vechicles before Rumsfeld “seems” to notice. I want vehicles wired with the $10,000 devices that will interfere with the radio signals that set explosives off. I want the American people to be asked to sacrifice some at home by saving on oil and metal and giving up their tax breaks. I want the DOD to quit wasting money and I want death benefits increased for the families of those who are killed. I want Ken Lay’s feet held to the fire and Halliburton’s too. I want Halliburton employees in Kuwait to move out of their expensive hotel rooms.
I could keep going, but you know the issues that concern me.
BTW, you said that he has explained himself and his administrations actions for the last four years. I’ve been trying to determine why he gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. Has he explained that? Just curious. Don’t mean to hijack.
And you have to admit that he has flipflopped on our main reasons for going to war in Iraq. I wish he wouldn’t keep changing his explanations, but I guess he has to.
I will bet that in the long run, you and I want a lot of the same things.
