DTB?

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
You continue to deny that these guys (or girls in Condis case) try to tie 9/11 to Iraq.

In his speech tonight he mentions-(somewhat paraphrasing) 'we will not let the the terrorists shake our will in Iraq, just like we wouldn't let the terrorists shake our will on 9/11.'

Speech writers are pretty clever, but i'd think that you would see what he was trying to do. They keep doing it and the lemmings in this country keep buying it.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
There are two sides to this coin, and I am on the same side as you on this, kosar. I know the goal of comments like that are to give him some breathing room, but I think it is actually detrimental because his opposition is always ready to pounce on that statement. I think it will restrict more than open up room for him this time.

If I were in their shoes and if I wanted to make links in some people's mind about this idea, I would be much more subtle about them.

Overall, I thought the speech served most of its purpose. I was not expecting much more information than was given.

Any other opinions overall?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
dawgball said:
Overall, I thought the speech served most of its purpose. I was not expecting much more information than was given.

Any other opinions overall?

I agree. The content was exactly as expected and he didn't embarrass himself, like he usually does. It was ok and routine, and I highly doubt anybody from either side of the fence would possibly come close to changing their thoughts on the war.

It was identical to the sound bites we get nearly every day. Basically an irrelevant speech after being described by many news organizations, including Fox(Cavuto, Smith) as the most important of his presidency.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
I really think that Bush does believe that the 9/11 terrorist came from Iraq, why else would he continue to try and link the two?


Today, we have no realistic strategy to reduce the risks to our soldiers and achieve our goals. While our military has done a superb job, our civilian leadership has not, and our soldiers are paying the price every day. ... When the vice president absurdly claims the 'insurgency is in its last throes,' he insults the common sense and intelligence of the American people." ? Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.


Historian Robert Dallek, a biographer of President Lyndon B. Johnson and an outspoken critic of Bush, said: "Analogies are imperfect, and I hate to press this one, but this is so much like Vietnam. It has echoes of the Vietnam experience when senators like [Arkansas Democrat J. William] Fulbright began to hammer Johnson on our aims and goals and credibility?.

"It's a cumulative process. It takes time. We're not at the full-blown stage on this yet. But it's heading in that direction."
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
he keeps harping on a free Iraq...like he cares...the facade is laffable... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

he needs to quit his" make believe crusade " that he suddenly got out of bed one day and decided..""oh golly gee willikers, the whold world needs a free Iraq"
Like him and Cheney really care if Iraq is free.. :mj07: :mj07: :rolleyes:

Gosh he such a caring person, he is bringing tears to my eyes ! :mj07:
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
This IRAQ thing is one BIG WHITE ELEPHANT for the presidency.

and the more Americans that are being killed for his personal escapade, the heavier and fatter and bigger that elephant becomes.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I think the speech speaks for itself. Stay the course. Whatever that is. It is an outrage that the Corporate Press has not been pressing for answers. Not so much about when we are going to leave but about why we are there in the first place? And this exit plan sounds a lot like the exit plan for Vietnam.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
Thought speech was good--noticed abc-nbc-cbs had no coverage.

To answer your question Matt I didn't get that at all out of it.
what I got was terrorist struck here on 911 AND NOW are congregating in Iraq to make a stand.

I liked his time line on what they project they needed to do--so far the voting-changeover ect has went pn schedule DESPITE the terrorist all out effort to stop it--The Iraq people are standing up to them--they did in the voting and as terrorist kill 100 of their troops 1000 more enlist and our troops are not swayed--so only place I can see terrorist remotely winning is on algezzeera and our liberal media and the Kennedy's Kerry's Durbins ect who carry no weight--Durbin and Reid will go same route as Dashle next time around and if being from Mass is only thing that saves Kennedy.

As far as CNN polls ect I view the entire population that voted MUCH more accurate than polls same for UK and Australia.
You can believe the press or the population.

As far as while elephant--I doubt it for very reason he has 3 more years and think things will pretty much be resolved--how it plays out we'll see--BUT historically the most noted presidents or those that had to make tough decisions in tough times---doing nothing and retreat never accomplished anything.

Again I think the speech was very good--the only thing that could have put point across better is if imediately after speech--they would have ran replays of Deans speach--Kennedys Quagmire--Durbins comparing our troops to nazi's--Reids assertion of our troops and prisons--plus corresonding press articles from Algezeera reprinted from our liberal media and quotes from our liberal politicians.;)
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
Now if anyone is interested in what Pres said and remarks "both" pro and con afterwards---

Bush: 'Terrorists Are Failing' in Iraq

Wednesday, June 29, 2005



WASHINGTON ? On the first anniversary of the transfer of power from coalition to Iraqi authorities, President Bush outlined his strategy to win the conflict that has cost the lives of more than 1,740 U.S. troops.

He also reminded Americans why U.S. troops were in Iraq.

"The terrorists who attacked us ? and the terrorists we face ? murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent," the president said.

"Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression ? by toppling governments, driving us out of the region, and exporting terror," Bush told troops at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, home of the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division (search).

"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania," he continued.

"There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home," he said.

Criticism of the administration's Iraq policy has been mounting in Congress, with lawmakers in both parties pointing to a drop in public opinion and some Democrats making comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam by calling it a "quagmire."

In his speech, Bush acknowledged that "progress has been uneven. But progress is being made."

"The terrorists ? both foreign and Iraqi ? failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty," he said. "They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq?s diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy."

Leading Democrats faulted the president for what they described as a lack of detail in what he intended to do to win the peace and bring American service members home.

"The president missed an opportunity tonight for straight talk to the American people," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (search), D-Calif., said in a statement.

Rep. Richard Wexler (search), D-Fla., said Bush "espoused empty rhetoric about Iraq in an attempt to allay American fears ... [and] failed to address the most significant problems surrounding this ill-conceived, poorly planned and falsely-justified war."

A Multi-Step, Coordinated Process

Bush quoted Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden's declaration that Iraq was the central front in the War on Terror, and restated the mission several times ? to hunt down terrorists while helping Iraqis build a free nation that would lay the groundwork for peace in the Middle East.

Bush said several goals had been reached:

? Sovereignty had been restored to Iraqis;

? Eight million Iraqis voted in elections to establish an interim government;

? The infrastructure, including roads, schools and health clinics as well as sanitation, electricity and water facilities, was being rebuilt;

? More than 160,000 security forces had been trained and equipped.

The president acknowledged that not all Iraqi security forces could plan and execute anti-terrorist operations, but contended they were building up as quickly as possible.

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," Bush said.

The president also gave credit to the international community for its support. Forty countries and three international organizations had pledged $34 billion in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction, Bush said.

Meanwhile, 30 nations had troops in Iraq and others were contributing non-military assistance; the United Nations was helping Iraqis write a constitution for the next elections; and donor countries were to meet in Jordan next month to pledge support toward Iraqi reconstruction, following a similar summit in Brussels last week.

Bush said hundreds of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations had been killed or captured. More than 2,000 Iraqi security forces had died in the effort.

The president also discussed three new steps he said were being taken by U.S. troops:

? Partnering coalition units with Iraqi units to conduct field operations together;

? Embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units to provide battlefield advice and assistance during combat operations, and also teach urban combat, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques;

? Working with the Iraqi ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities and develop command and control structures as well as civilian and military leadership training.

Bush added that NATO was establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders.

Bush said all those steps would allow Iraqis to vote for a new government and "bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights."

Praise for the U.S. Military

During his remarks, Bush thanked the troops, who were warned not to hoop and holler during the address, telling them they had "contributed mightily" to create a free, democratic and safe Iraq.

"To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our nation. I thank our military families ? the burden of war falls especially hard on you," Bush said.

Earlier in the day, Bush set aside nearly three hours to meet families of soldiers who had died, as he usually does when he visits military bases. Outside the base, opponents of the war protested.

"There's a groundswell against this war,'" said Bill Dobbs, spokesman United for Peace and Justice (search), an anti-war coalition of more than 1,300 local and national groups. "You can see it in Congress, you can see it in newspaper editorials and what young people are saying to military recruiters: 'No.'"

The Bush administration is fighting public displeasure with the war effort. A recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed doubts about the war have reached a high point, with more than half of those surveyed saying invading Iraq was a mistake.

A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken earlier this month found that Iraq was by far the issue Americans considered the most important for the federal government to address. In the poll, 25 percent cited Iraq and Saddam Hussein as the top issue; the No. 2 issue was the economy, with 13 percent listing it as the most important.

In the second poll, Bush had the approval of 48 percent of Americans, while 43 percent disapproved of his job performance.

Several lawmakers stated before the president's speech that they wanted to hear about concrete steps to secure Iraq so that U.S. soldiers and sailors could plan to leave. Many Democrats on Capitol Hill, as well as some Republicans, have urged the president to lay out a timetable for withdrawal.

Bush said he recognized that Americans want the troops to come home.

"Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces," he said. "Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis ? who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.

"It would send the wrong message to our troops ? who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve," he continued. "And it would send the wrong message to the enemy ? who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed ? and not a day longer."

Bush also explained why he did not want to change troop levels unless commanders asked for it.

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight," he said. "And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever ? when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."

Bush's speech is part of a White House public-relations campaign to calm public anxieties about the war. It came after several conflicting, sometimes perplexing, messages about the nature and duration of the conflict.

Vice President Dick Cheney last month asserted that the insurgency in Iraq was "in its last throes."

He was later contradicted by the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, who told a Congressional panel that the insurgency had not weakened, and by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said on "FOX News Sunday" that the war could drag on for another decade.

Rumsfeld also told an interviewer this month that Iraq was "statistically" no safer for its citizens today than it was before the ouster of Saddam Hussein, although he maintained progress was being made.

As part of the PR campaign, Bush encouraged Americans to show their support for the military by flying the flag on the Fourth of July, sending letters to military members and helping military families.

He also announced a new Department of Defense Web site: AmericaSupportsYou.mil.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
cont-----
Bush urged young people who might be interested in a military career to look into enlisting. The Defense Department has said it expects a shortfall in enlistments for the first time in six years.

"There is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces," Bush said. "We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves."

"Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform," he added. "When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom."

Swift Reaction to the Speech

Immediately after the speech, Sen. Chuck Schumer (search), D-N.Y., said that Americans know a strong fight in the War on Terror was necessary but that they also needed to see a "light at the end of the tunnel."

?People want to know what the end game is, how the insurgency can be quelled, and when an Iraqi security force will be trained to take care of its own security needs," said Schumer. "This administration still has a long way to go in laying out the details of a plan to enable the Iraqis to defend their own democracy and secure victory in Iraq."

Former presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark (search) commented that the president recited some points that needed to be said, but left several questions unresolved.

"For example, he didn't really come to grips with the dichotomy between what Vice President Cheney said ? that the insurgency is in its last throes ? and what Secretary Rumsfeld warned ? that this could last five to 12 more years. And he admitted progress is uneven," Clark told FOX News.

"He didn't really explain why car bombings have gone up, despite our effective operations, or why the insurgents are coming in increasing numbers, or why the insurgency is still the same strength," Clark continued. "These are all the elements that create doubt and uncertainty in the minds of the American public."

Sen. John Warner (search), R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told FOX News that he was very proud of the president's speech.

"He spoke with confidence and an unwavering resolve to stay the course and to achieve the goals on which we've set out," Warner said, adding that it was essential for Iraqis to stay on a timeline in developing a constitution and holding elections.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
His reception by troops at Ft Bragg was cool. His speech was interrupted by applause only once.

Could their enthusiasm be colored by the fact that the Bush Administration opposed and Republican House majority successfully defeated a Democratic proposal to alllocate 1.9 billion dollars to the VA to help care of our wounded and sick veterans?

And now surprise the VA is presenting before Congress their plight and squeezed resources. This is how the Presidency of Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld repay those paying the price for their cynical policies.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
"His reception by troops at Ft Bragg was cool. His speech was interrupted by applause only once."

IF you would view fair and balanced network instead of liberal media you would KNOW that "prior to speech" they announced that soilders were told emphatically NOT to interrupt speech and hold applause till end.

If you'd throw away that NYT and view real news you wouldn't be continueously be exposed for liberal jiberish spin ;)

--and considering Fort Bragg is home to 82nd airborne and special forces you can bet your bottom $ most would rather be in Iraq than there.
You won't find fanny packs and pocket protectors in this bunch :)
 
Last edited:

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
ocelot--it was made very clear on Fox and CNN last night that it was stressed to a great extent to attendees not to applaud during the speech.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
LOL at Bush trying to sucker people into enlisting and going to Iraq by yet again abusing the word "freedom". Maybe they'll get lucky like him and only have serve in Alabama instead of the sh1t.

I join him in the call of all his supporters to duty, however.

DTB, can you create a post without the L word?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,472
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
Smurph when pointing out corrections--mistatements--retractions-forged documents ect--how do you keep from using L-Word--they are synonymous--you'll note I rarily relate to term Democrat because they for most part are not quilty. In fact with 99 % of liberal vote--90% of black vote--60%+ hispanic vote and still losing seats in every election I would say the Dems and Rebs for most part are on same tangent and only differ in affiliation not thought process.

Can anyone produce cut an paste from liberal source coverage of speech that doesn't have more quotes in it from liberals than Bush.
Paste one remotely close to the coverage of Fox's above--little wonder more people watched Fox coverage on speech more than then other cable outlets COMBINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At what point do you say "uncle" :)
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
To answer your question Matt I didn't get that at all out of it.
what I got was terrorist struck here on 911 AND NOW are congregating in Iraq to make a stand.

:rolleyes: Oh brother. He mentioned 9/11 5 times in a speech trying to justify the war in Iraq. What, exactly, does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing.

What kind of crazy logic is this: Well, we invaded a country that was an enemy of terrorist organizations and turned it into a terrorist haven. That's why we're there, to fight terrorists! Terrorists were responsible for 9/11 and *that's* what Iraq has to do with 9/11. Huh?

You would have to be really obtuse to not see what he was doing by slipping 9/11 in there, over and over.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
the goal is to make any mention of 9/11 totally off limits for bush and the administration.........

ignoring 9/11 when discussing the u.s. and the war on terror is much like ignoring "the murders" when discussing o.j....


and i agree that the administration has been woeful at making the case that iraq was indeed involved in terrorist activity...as i outlined in another thread....

no,i don`t think saddam planned the 9/11 attacks...sheesh...

but,saddam hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al qaeda..... a place where terror attacks against the united states and the west were planned......

a place where saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al qaeda terrorists planning operations......a place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks.....get medical treatment..... a place where terrorists could lick their wounds..... a place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics........

in short, a platform of the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed....

is it a coincidence that the 3 abu`s(al zarqawi,abbas,nidal) paid visits to iraq?... i don`t think so...

saddam made iraq their cozy place to land long before that....they are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.......

the president needs to be talking about saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in damascus and teheran....

this didn`t start with 9/11....it started with the wtc...the achille lauro...the cole.....the attempt on bush,sr`s life.... and on and on... l

the president is guilty.....of not dwelling on 9/11 enough...

osama said it best...."the third world war is raging in iraq...the whole world is watching this war"...

well,we are making it known to our enemies that we will come for them...if they aid abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.


we can`t lose....if you truly care about this country...and the war on terror...

unless,of course, you believe ,like moveon.org does...that politics trump the country`s best interests...
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
And what about the denial of responsibility to wounded vets? Do you REALLY think that the troops at Ft Bragg support this bunch of hypocrites who give themselves tax cuts while getting them slaughtered and maimed?

Lets suppose you were going to give a speech to a less than enthusiastic audience that you knew weren't going to be applauding much? "Hey guys, keep the applause down during the speech will ya?" Too funny. This was supposed to be a big rally the troops and the nation speech - why would Bush want to have a show of enthusiasm tamped down? Doesn't really add up.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
GW,

Why do you continue to ignore that every branch of our intelligence has said that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

There were more terror cells right here in America than there were in Iraq 1n 2001. That's not really saying much since there were zero in Iraq.

*That's* the reason that it seems to you like Bush & co. haven't made a 'case' regarding terrorists in Iraq. It's because it would directly contradict everything that we know. Once again, just because a terrorist set foot in Iraq ever in one hundred years doesn't mean they are teaming up.

They do, however, manage to slip 9/11 in there as they are talking about the Iraq war. It may seem subtle, but it had a very clear purpose of trying to keep people, even if it's subconscious, associating 9/11 with this clusterf*ck. It seems to be working on you, GW.

But if that's the new excuse for the invasion, Iraq would be about 30th on the list, based on the 'teeming with terrorists' criteria.

As we all know by now, Bush was chomping at the bit to get Saddam even before he was sworn in. But without 9/11, he never would have gotten away with this crap. So I guess in that *one* way 9/11 is tied to Iraq. Without 9/11, this whole country wouldn't have been scared to death and certainly would have demanded much more evidence or reasoning or something regarding this invasion.

That's what makes this even more sickening. 3,000 die and Bush goes after a country that wasn't even involved. That could have waited. As was pointed out to Einstein Bush by anybody who would know, a 10 foot long balsa wood model airplane with a range of 30 miles was not exactly an immdiate threat to deliver anthrax to our country.

Surely you remember Bush staring us right in the face saying that Saddam had a fleet of 'Unmanned drones' that were capable of delivering WMD to the United States. They had one 'drone' that was for spying that would have a hard time making it to Iran, much less here.

That's how he did it, with total nonsense like that. That's how he got everybody on board and there are a few still on board. Honestly, I would feel a little foolish if I fell for all that, so I understand the neverending and always changing reasons cited for being there.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top