Great Quote from Bush Today

[-Cp]

I'm copy-pasting this from an earlier post, because it answers your question. I guess you missed it.

"I think its a good idea to get more countries involved. I'm not a politician, I don't know who the viable candidates are. I'm not saying I don't think its impossible for Kerry to do this, but I do think its a great idea for him to want to try. I mean, its either that or more of the same. I think Kerry should be CIC because Bush doesn't seem willing, and even if he were, I don't think he'd be able to bring others to the table. "


Way to side-step your befuddling Gulf War I and Enduring Freedom parallel.

Just like a typical lib, you keep ducking everything...

First you say you wished other countries were invovled, so I asked you 'who" needed to be involved for you to think it's a "just war"...

You dodged that one by saying "I mean more countries need to be involved" - I asked you how many more?

For that you also don't have an answer ...

 

[Merlin1047]

If I might try to put Bush's representation of Kerry's sentiments back into context:

The marines on the ground are fighting for a worthy cause. Saddam needed to be deposed. This is Kerry's stance.

Bush asserts that in Kerry's opinion, the 'liberation of Iraq' is a colossal error. That's a shamefully dishonest representation of what Kerry believes, which is that the way in which the war was prosecuted was the colossal error.

Ergo, fighting for a worthy cause but in a manner which is erroneous
are not incompatible statements.

Kerry called the attack on Iraq a collossal mistake. Nuance that as you will, you can't change it. Kerry has waffled back and forth on what should or should not have been done regarding Iraq. During the early primaries he was pro-war because he perceived that would give him traction against Dean. Then when his nomination appeared secure, kerry became anti-war. When his Viet Nam and post Viet Nam actions were increasingly called into question he needed to shore up his image, so he became pro-war - again. After the convention, he needed to contrast his position against Pres. Bush, so he became anti-war - again. During the last two months, as he saw himself slipping in the polls, he decided that his "final" position would be to be pro-war - again.

So go ahead and complain about "context" if you wish, I'd just like to get a little consistency. Or should I say - I'd like a little less "nuance".

Kerry says we need to spend less money there. I agree. Kerry also says we should be doing more to train Iraqis. If we garner more international funding for the war, both of these can be achieved simultaneously, ergo they are not incompatible statements.

John Kerry believes that a war in which 90% of the casualties and 90% of the money are coming from the United States is "the wrong war". I agree. If we are able to garner more international support, it would be "the right war".

When the Iraq war was initially prosecuted, it was a diversion from Afghanistan, the most direct assault on the terrorist in the war on terror. AT THE TIME, he believed invading Iraq was a diversion from this war. Bush took that sentiment out of context and said that Kerry labeled the war HERE AND NOW as a diversion from the war on terror. This is a subtle and effective way of twisting Kerry's logic, and the president had no qualms in doing so.

How will we go about securing the international support you suggest? Perhaps kerry can get it from France and Germany? Kerry's claim that he can somehow acquire the cooperation of recalcitrant nations like France is nothing more than hollow boasting. And why is your assessment of the righteousness of the war based on its cost? Cost has practically no bearing on whether a war should or should not be undertaken. Perhaps that is the measure which liberals apply to a situation, but conservatives tend to take a different view based more on moral principles than monetary considerations.

The assertion that Iraq was a diversion from Afghanistan is illogical. Why would the Bush administration want a diversion? Afhganistan was proceeding reasonably well and we were starting to run low on targets. The middle east was a breeding ground for terrorists and Iraq was probably the best choice for applying a lesson to other nations in the region.

Finally, any statement regarding kerry's positions could be considered as "twisting" his logic since his "logic" resembles not a straight line, but a Gordian knot.

Ok, having clarified all that, I don't necessarily understand 1. how Kerry is going to garner more int'l support 2. what 'doing more' to train Iraqis is. I also am not sure that I agree that invading Iraq was a 'diversion' from the War on terror. ALL I'm saying is that I'm not OK will the president willfully misrepresenting what John Kerry has been saying. Although I will admit he did so in a very clever and effective manner (both sides do it, its a function of being in a tight presidential election race).

Kerry lied about the international support. He has no clue where it will come from. He knows he lied about getting support from France. Kerry wants to spend less money, he knows he can't get it, yet he wants to train the Iraqis at a faster pace. And now you're saying that Pres. Bush "willfully" misrepresented what john kerry has been saying. Batshit. It's tough enough keeping track of what john kerry is saying. Representing kerry's mercurial position-shifting statements in an accurate manner is a practical impossibility.

 

[nakedemperor]

Just like a typical lib, you keep ducking everything...

First you say you wished other countries were invovled, so I asked you 'who" needed to be involved for you to think it's a "just war"...

You dodged that one by saying "I mean more countries need to be involved" - I asked you how many more?

For that you also don't have an answer ...

More is better, it doesn't matter how many. Agree?

Who? Like I said (twice) I don't know who, I don't know who would be amenable, I don't know who COULD, I merely like the idea of bringing countries to the table to talk. I'm not ducking anything, you're simply incapable of processesing my answers. I've already responded twice to the questions I'm 'ducking'. So, just to be sure, I'll re-re-repeat myself:

1. Having other countries involved reduces cost and casualties for U.S. Ergo, the exact number is irrelevant, as I only posited that more = better.

2. I'm not qualified to predict who would be amenable to helping, nor am I qualified to tell you who COULD help out.

3. I think Kerry's stance on inclusion has a much better chance of succeeding than Bush's.



Now, stop ducking MY question, and explain your logic that "30 was enough" for repelling an invasion, why isn't it enough for regime change?

 

[dmp]

Dammit....

Mary bet me $20 that I'd not read recalcitrant and batshit in the same topic today...I declined.

 

[-Cp]

More is better, it doesn't matter how many. Agree?

Who? Like I said (twice) I don't know who, I don't know who would be amenable, I don't know who COULD, I merely like the idea of bringing countries to the table to talk. I'm not ducking anything, you're simply incapable of processesing my answers. I've already responded twice to the questions I'm 'ducking'. So, just to be sure, I'll re-re-repeat myself:

1. Having other countries involved reduces cost and casualties for U.S. Ergo, the exact number is irrelevant, as I only posited that more = better.

2. I'm not qualified to predict who would be amenable to helping, nor am I qualified to tell you who COULD help out.

3. I think Kerry's stance on inclusion has a much better chance of succeeding than Bush's.

Now, stop ducking MY question, and explain your logic that "30 was enough" for repelling an invasion, why isn't it enough for regime change?

1. More would not automatically be better if those "more" were worthless pieces of crap countries like France - so no, I don't agree with the "more is better" propaganda... 30 seems to be getting the job done just fine...

2. Nor is Kerry - in fact, France and Germany have gone on record of saying they still have no plans on getting involved even if Kerry gets elected..

3. What's better about it?


You tard, the regime HAS BEEN CHANGED - you have got to be the biggest dumb-ass in this forum...

 

[UsaPride]

Dammit....

Mary bet me $20 that I'd not read recalcitrant and batshit in the same topic today...I declined.

LMAO!! Next time you'll know better! I had to give rep for batshit, LOL!

 

[nakedemperor]

You tard, the regime HAS BEEN CHANGED - you have got to be the biggest dumb-ass in this forum...

Tard. Cp- how old are you?

You obviously know about as much about nation-building as I do.. which isn't very much. But I do know this. So the regime has been changed. Do you think a force capable of repelling the Iraqi army in '91 is equipped to (having changed the regime) put down civil strife, secure the borders, guard key infrastructure, assault and destroy rebel strongholds, train Iraqi police, and a national army, and maintain the peace in order to have free elections? I'd say you do, by your previous posts on the subject:

"How many more countries then? 34 seemed to be enough for people (libs) like you back in Gulf War 1, but somehow 30 isn't enough for this war? Jeesh.."

The parallels you draw are uninformed and simplistic.

And you name-call. :baby4:

 

[nakedemperor]

D--

Best.
Avatar.
Ever.

 

[Bonnie]

I'll forgive Bush for it since he only has four more weeks as CIC.

And what will you do if your wrong about that???

 

[dmp]

Tard. Cp- how old are you?

You obviously know about as much about nation-building as I do.. which isn't very much. But I do know this. So the regime has been changed. Do you think a force capable of repelling the Iraqi army in '91 is equipped to (having changed the regime) put down civil strife, secure the borders, guard key infrastructure, assault and destroy rebel strongholds, train Iraqi police, and a national army, and maintain the peace in order to have free elections? I'd say you do, by your previous posts on the subject:

"How many more countries then? 34 seemed to be enough for people (libs) like you back in Gulf War 1, but somehow 30 isn't enough for this war? Jeesh.."

The parallels you draw are uninformed and simplistic.

And you name-call. :baby4:

If being called a 'tard' is the worst thing to happen to you today, consider yourself blessed.



Let it go - to even bring it up as a point of contention is lame. It's akin to me crying cuz -Cp said "Take it BITCH!" when he dunks on me while playing basketball.

 

[dilloduck]

Cheneys' best point of the night was that the Dems leave out Iraqis when they speak of the coalition. They are the most valuable troops there !!!

 

[Merlin1047]

Dammit....

Mary bet me $20 that I'd not read recalcitrant and batshit in the same topic today...I declined.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

You got me.

I got a good laugh out of it.

Now I'm working on getting even.

 

[Flying Duck]

I support the John Edwards view on the war:

10/10/02: "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

or maybe this Edwards quote:

On September 12, 2002, Edwards said this: "The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them.

On September 12, 2002, "we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/733ecxey.asp

 

[ChrisH]

Ok, having clarified all that, I don't necessarily understand 1. how Kerry is going to garner more int'l support 2. what 'doing more' to train Iraqis is. I also am not sure that I agree that invading Iraq was a 'diversion' from the War on terror. ALL I'm saying is that I'm not OK will the president willfully misrepresenting what John Kerry has been saying. Although I will admit he did so in a very clever and effective manner (both sides do it, its a function of being in a tight presidential election race).

Atleast this quote shows that you are one of few democrats that have some sense. Yes, how is Kerry going to go about doing many of the things he has said he will do, to make this war 'right'? I also do not think this war is a diversion from War on Terror. It is an essential part of the War on Terror. Whether democrats will agree or not, I think we know Saddam was capable of anything. Saddam did have connections with terrorism. This does not mean he had anything to do with 9/11, but it means he had the capability of supplying terrorists for future terrorist attacks against the U.S. and other countries. The world is much safter because of the fact that we went in and took out Saddam. Regardless of who you are, you have to agree with that!

The marines on the ground are fighting for a worthy cause. Saddam needed to be deposed. This is Kerry's stance.

The Marines and other military in Iraq are fighting for a worthy cause. But this is not what John Kerry gives me the impression he thinks. How can they be fighting for a worthy cause, yet it is the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place"? How can they be fighting for a worthy cause if this is a "grand diversion"? How can they be fighting for a worthy cause if this is the "wrong war"? John Kerry said numerous times during the debate that Iraq was a mistake. But, when asked if the troops were dying because of a mistake, he answered "no". It just doesn't add up.

Bush asserts that in Kerry's opinion, the 'liberation of Iraq' is a colossal error. That's a shamefully dishonest representation of what Kerry believes, which is that the way in which the war was prosecuted was the colossal error......John Kerry believes that a war in which 90% of the casualties and 90% of the money are coming from the United States is "the wrong war". I agree. If we are able to garner more international support, it would be "the right war".

All I have heard Kerry say is what I said in my above statement, "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place", "mistake", "grand diversion", etc. Yet, he doesn't think it is a colossal error? No it is not. We have taken out one of the most evil dictators, ever! We have changed the regime! Most of Iraq is secure! The media, of course, reports on the few cities which are not secure. They report as though the Iraqis do not want us there. They, in my opinion, make it worse than it is. The truth is what I stated above. Saddam out, new regime in, training Iraqis to fight and secure for themselves, election to be held in January, etc. The people we are fighting in Iraq, are not he Iraqis, they are the terrorists who are afraid of a free, democratic country amongst them, in the Middle East.
And I don't appreciate the comments by Kerry and Edwards regarding the 90% casualties. If you take the number of troops America has in Iraq, approx., and the number of American troops that have died, approx., it ends up being somewhere around 1%. If that 1% is 90% of all of the casualties, than I am surprised. Personally I think the 90% is a bit too high, and used in a way to make it seem like America has received mass casualties, much more than we have. The truth is, less have died in this war, to this point, than have died at this point in previous wars. In fact, less have died in this war, than have died in Detroit this year.

The truth is John Kerry consistently makes comments about the war that don't add up with other comments. He claims he is going to get all of this international support, yet how? France and Germany have already said they will not join, even if Kerry is elected. If he cannot get more help, than how is he going to start bringing troops home on 6 months? Kerry/Edwards like to use the comment "more of the same", when describing a second Bush term. I see "more of the same" if Kerry is elected, as far as Iraq goes. I think Bush is the one better equiped to finish off our work in Iraq. Kerry just seems too much into trying to please everyone. I have seen no other counties express their being pleased with Kerry, as a couple, two fo the biggest ones we would like to have join, have already said, "no"!

 

[dilloduck]

Agreed--Why isn't Kerry campaigning to pull our troops out??? He says we were misled, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, no WMDs. IF all this is true, why is he planning on keeping troops there? Is he too afraid to say he wants to pull out the troops OR is he too afraid to say that we NEED to be there ? STAND UP AND PICK ONE KERRY !!!!!!!

 

[Zhukov]

If you take the number of troops America has in Iraq, approx., and the number of American troops that have died, approx., it ends up being somewhere around 1%. If that 1% is 90% of all of the casualties, than I am surprised. Personally I think the 90% is a bit too high, and used in a way to make it seem like America has received mass casualties, much more than we have.

It's possible that if you only take into account non-Iraqi soldiers in Iraq, U.S. casualties since the begining of the invasion might comprise 90% just because there are so many more U.S. soldiers. But as VP Cheney said during Tuesday night's debate, this number completely omits the sacrifices of the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi people. VP Cheney said if you take Iraqi coalition forces into consideration our casualties fall to about 50%.

I have the radio on most of the day, and what I typically hear on any given day is 0-3 U.S. soldiers dead, 2-10 injured but 20-40 Iraqi civilians killed, 100+ injured. I'll bet if you took into account the number of innocent Iraqis who are dying or being injured by the terrorists our share of the casualty contribution would be pretty low.

The Democratic nominees would rather try to scare you into voting for them. Just another example of the liberal double standard. Painting an optimistic picture to build confidence and resolve is using 'scare tactics', but completely distorting reality to paint an exagerrated and entirely pessimistic picture to win votes is not.

 

[ChrisH]

It's possible that if you only take into account non-Iraqi soldiers in Iraq, U.S. casualties since the begining of the invasion might comprise 90% just because there are so many more U.S. soldiers. But as VP Cheney said during Tuesday night's debate, this number completely omits the sacrifices of the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi people. VP Cheney said if you take Iraqi coalition forces into consideration our casualties fall to about 50%.

I have the radio on most of the day, and what I typically hear on any given day is 0-3 U.S. soldiers dead, 2-10 injured but 20-40 Iraqi civilians killed, 100+ injured. I'll bet if you took into account the number of innocent Iraqis who are dying or being injured by the terrorists our share of the casualty contribution would be pretty low.

The Democratic nominees would rather try to scare you into voting for them. Just another example of the liberal double standard. Painting an optimistic picture to build confidence and resolve is using 'scare tactics', but completely distorting reality to paint an exagerrated and entirely pessimistic picture to win votes is not.

I see what you are saying. I suppose if you do that, the number may be close to 90%. But why stop there? I am waiting for Kerry and Edwards to ignore the 30 other nations helping us, and then start reporting that America has received 100% of the casualties!

Kerry and Edwards are using the 90% number in a false way. They are using it to give the appearance, without implying it directly, that 90% of our troops have died. The reality is, when you take the number of troops we have in Iraq and the number of troops that have died thus far, the percentage is about 1% approximately.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah? So what other countries would need to support us for you to consider it a "right war" and not a "wrong war"?

Fuck what other countries think is 'right'...America has a GOOD track record of fighting wars for the right reasons. It's MUCH better for the USA to stand alone in the world for 'truth' than to only do the right thing when the rest of the world approves.


Hows this for the Right War?

The UN voted to take military action against IRAQ in Gulf War I.



KERRY Voted AGAINST that action.


What will it take for Kerry to take a stand against evil? He says 'wait for the UN pussies to tell us to act', but when they told us to act, he STILL said 'no'.

It's time to re-visit those "conservative"/pro-War arguments.....when BUSHCO's OFFICIALLY BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!​

September 22, 2010​

"Former president George W. Bush's advisers focused on toppling Saddam Hussein's regime as soon as he took office and discussed how to justify a war in Iraq shortly after invading Afghanistan in 2001, official documents showed Wednesday.

A few hours after the September 11 attacks in 2001, then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of attacking Iraq as well as Osama bin Laden, according to notes of a meeting on that day, newly declassified papers show.

Rumsfeld told a Pentagon lawyer to go to his deputy to get "support" showing a supposed link between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda's founder, according to the papers posted by the Washington-based National Security Archive, an independent research institute."

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, the dingleberries here need to be reminded how much support Bush had from them at the time.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yep, the dingleberries here need to be reminded how much support Bush had from them at the time.

Whatta drag that Colin Powell hadn't had the good-sense to (possibly) scuttle their efforts....​

* Secretary of State Powell’s awareness, three days into a new administration, that Iraq “regime change” would be a principal focus of the Bush presidency.