Well, first you have to understand that Bush is just the front guy for his handlers who have imperial fantasies. You’re talking Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Perle, Kristol and their supporters here. Their program is world domination. Control of the Middle East is key. Europe knows that this clique has plans to control their source of oil, and they are very concerned, to put it mildly.
These people have taken a simple frat boy type and turned him into their convenient puppet. A few years ago, before he was introduced to Condoleeza Rice at George Schultz’ house, he probably couldn’t have found Iraq on a map. Now, of course, he is a true believer, having had his head pumped full of all kinds of shit he really doesn’t understand. He’s got religeon now.
I actually found myself feeling somewhat sorry for him as he struggled to defend the undefendable and explain the unexplainable.
My point is this. “Bad” things means nothing. It’s no support for a position. It’s just a subjective qualifier he has assigned to “things,” though what things those might be he refuses to enumerate. That’s the problem. (yes, I know these are your words not his, but I’m pretty much equating your re-iteration with his original statement).
Saying “bad things will happen,” or, as he says, “the price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action,” is equivalent with saying, “I have opinions as to why this is an important thing to do.”
I was just using the term “bad things” to abbreviate. Bush did lay out his reasons for attacking Iraq. Many times.
For instance, I don’t even need to go and look at a copy of the transcript. The one questions that has been posted here so far contains this:
So, just from that one answer some “bad things” about Saddam would include:
He has weapons of mass destruction.
He has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people.
He’s invaded countries in his neighborhood.
He tortures his own people.
He’s a murderer.
He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before.
You can disagree with his arguments. But, you must not have been paying attention to the speech, and not reading this thread so far to state that Bush “refuses to enumerate” his reasons.
Well, yes, he didn’t directly respond to this part of the question. However, he did respond by saying “The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action.”
But, it’s not entirely out of the ordinary for a politician to not directly answer a question. Like I said before, it wouldn’t be prudent for him to start getting into hypothetical worst case scenarios like this.
He does say that if another attack similar to 9/11 happened then there would be an exraordinary cost in terms of US lives and economy. It’s his position that by removing Saddam we lessen the risk of such an attack.
*"Well, first you have to understand that Bush is just the front guy for his handlers who have imperial fantasies. You’re talking Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Perle, Kristol and their supporters here. Their program is world domination. Control of the Middle East is key. Europe knows that this clique has plans to control their source of oil, and they are very concerned, to put it mildly.
These people have taken a simple frat boy type and turned him into their convenient puppet. A few years ago, before he was introduced to Condoleeza Rice at George Schultz’ house, he probably couldn’t have found Iraq on a map. Now, of course, he is a true believer, having had his head pumped full of all kinds of shit he really doesn’t understand. He’s got religeon now.
I actually found myself feeling somewhat sorry for him as he struggled to defend the undefendable and explain the unexplainable."*
Oh my GOD!!! I’d better start watching for the black helicopters!!!
No-one is saying Saddam’s a nice guy. But did you notice that the reasons that Bush trotted out again and again - the ones you outline here - often came directly after Bush said that Saddam poses a threat to the security of the United States?
Your first five points are valid; you’re sixth one is relatively debatable, especially in terms of its al Qaeda reference. Bush failed to make connection between what is wrong with Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the alleged “threat” he poses to the United States on the other. And the threat to the US is ostensibly the key reason that he wants to go in. He also ignored statements by his own Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, made a few days ago, that war on Iraq would probably increase the risks of terrorist assaults on the US and its citizens.
One piece of standard Bush administration logic that the OP forgot was what i call the Security Council backflip:
Bush administration rhetoric #1: defying the Security Council is unacceptable, and Saddam must be punished for it
Bush administration rhetoric #2: if the Security Council doesn’t vote the way we want, we’ll defy it and go in alone (in violation if the UN Charter, i might add).
The whole speech and press conference was one of the most self-serving, sophistic pieces of pre-emptive justification i have ever seen.
And I agree that it wouldn’t be prudent to start getting into hypothetical worst-case scenarios.
“Well, Sadaam could have a plan in place to smuggle a nuclear {ok, ok…nukular for all you Bush Bashies} bomb into Miami…”
And on the evening news would be the headline of Sadaam getting ready to blow up Miami if we attack him.
Never mind that worst-case scenarios are, almost by their very definition, the scenarios that are least likely to happen. A better question would have been somewhat along the lines of: “What do you think is LIKELY to happen if…”
sheesh
Which is why I never watch those things anymore.
mhendo I just pointed out those six arguments to prove that Bush was in fact making arguments. People were claiming otherwise.
I would rather not debate the actual war in this thread.
Toaster’s got it right. The POTUS should keep it to a high level discussion. It wouldn’t make sense to start getting into the details of “what if” this and that.
Frankly, I don’t know quite what the impetus was for holding that useless press conference last night. He didn’t give out any new info, didn’t indicate a new change in policy vis a vis Iraq, didn’t say much of anything. It really was just another “Tell Saddam that I’m not kidding” speech. Which, I suppose, is fine, as far as it goes. Insert mental shrug here.
As far as the criticism that he didn’t address the easily excitable Kennedy’s rhetoric, so friggin’ what? Like anyone with half a mind would give a split second of national airtime to answering the overheated bombast of that windbag. Far better to ignore the rantings of a self-styled prophet of doom and in doing so deny him legitimacy. Smarter than continuing to tolerate Helen Thomas in the daily press briefings when she asks some insane question of Ari Fleischer like, “Why do you want to bomb innocent Iraqi’s, Ari?”. Waste of oxygen.
I just don’t get this election stuff. As Bill Mayer says: “It’s soo September 10th.”
They counted the votes 5 times. Bush won every time. A group of many major news organizations counted the votes after the election and found that Bush won.
While you’ll find no-one more willing than me to make fun of Bush’s linguistic gaffes and his lack of knowledge about world affairs, i’m not qute sure that this picture of Bush as a mindless puppet is correct. Recent books by David Frum and Bob Woodward, as well as a long article in a recent New York Times Weekend Magazine, suggest that Bush is, in fact, firmly in control of what’s going on in the White House. If you believe these authors, what Bush says goes, and the idea that others are just pulling his strings is quite wrong.
I don’t think this indicates that he’s any more intelligent than he was before. Nor does it suggest to me that he understands the world any better then he did before. But it does suggest a pretty savvy politician who has decided what course he wants America to take, and who has listened closely enough to his advisers to be able to steer the White House in the direction he wants to go.
Knowledge of Bush’s apparent control does not make me any happier or more secure. If anything, i think this makes him even scarier and more dangerous than he was a couple of years ago. The NYT Magazine article called him a radical president, and that’s just what he is - a right-wing radical who has essentially abandoned his election campaign message of “compassionate conservatism” and global “humility” and embarked on a worrying course of helping the rich at the expense of the poor at home, and presenting a posture of belligerent unilateralism abroad.
I find it extremely ironic that you’re posting this in a thread referring to someone as a “broken record”.
No, Gore lost. If he won he’d be in the White House. That he’s not is the best proof that he lost. And that’s the way it is, whether you like it or not.
I’d like to see where the democratic process got abused. Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college, which has happened before. If anything, the fault lies in the voters that didn’t properly use the voting machines, because it’s patently unfair to try to “assume” the intent of the voters as a result of their incompetence using the machine.
That’s how I see it, and you’re free to disagree all you want, but little snide comments do not make a good argument and they make you look like a person with sour grapes.
Bush does indeed sound like a broken record. He keeps making that “Saddaam must disarm” speech over and over.
As far as the 2000 election, if only Gore had won his home state, he would have won. If only Clinton/Reno hadn’t pissed off the Cubans in Florida by snatching Elian at the point of a gun, Gore would have won Florida.
After reading this thread I really need to get this out of my CHEST:
after Reading the Bush Dyslexicon (book) and after all the speeches abot Saddam NOW I NEED A BUSH=ENGLISH…ENGLISH+BUSH dictionary.
He avoided going to Nam and never traveled beyond US frontiers before so most probably he doesnt even know were Iraq is anyway.
The biological weapons that Iraq has were provided by his father to Saddam so they are US developed, Remember it was a republican Goverment who armed Iraq.
there is no Link to al qaeda to Iraq, since Al q considers Saddam an Infidel and an enemy.
5 MOST IMPORTANT
The Us in the last half of the 20 century inmbarqued in a lot of illegal actions and alienated a lot of countries, now its doing it again, so if another attack occurs (hop e not), th eUS will have so many enemies that finding the right one will be imposible…
Even if the invasion goes perfect it will only make more xtremists of other countries…
I’m not sure why you would think that. To understand that these folks here have a very radical agenda and that Bush is their current front man is not a crackpot idea.
Furthermore, the recently released National Security Strategy reflects this thinking which is a radical departure from past strategic thinking. People who are informed on these matters are aware of this. Perhaps you should do some serious study of these matters. We live in dangerous times, and the danger emanates from the cabal now in power in Washington. To deny this is dangerously dillusional.
I predict that in the future, this will become known as the Bush Doctrine, and will be used by a variety of nations to make war on their neighbors that scare them. According to the Bush Doctrine, India can invade Pakistan to neutralize the nuclear threat. Russia can use overwhelming force and awe to crush Chechnya. North Korea can invade South Korea to expell the American Imperialists, and China can overrun Taiwan because it threatens the Revolutionary Spirit. According to the Bush Doctrine, no country is accountable to any other. If you are afraid of your neighbor, you are justified in effecting regime change through what ever means necessary. Thanks a lot George, the world is a safer place because of you.
