Mr. Bush's Wrong Solution

[TheOne]

Mr. Bush's Wrong Solution

At a time when Americans need strong leadership and bold action, President Bush offered tired nostrums and bureaucratic half-measures yesterday. He wanted to appear to be embracing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, but he actually rejected the panel's most significant ideas, and thus missed a chance to confront the twin burdens he faces at this late point in his term: the need to get intelligence reform moving whether he's re-elected or not, and the equally urgent need to repair the government's credibility on national security.

Mr. Bush spoke on a day when Americans were still digesting the terrifying warning of possible terrorist attacks against financial institutions in New York, Newark and Washington. The authorities in those cities did the right thing by stepping up security. But it's unfortunate that it is necessary to fight suspicions of political timing, suspicions the administration has sown by misleading the public on security. The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way. This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain.

article

 

[CSM]

"This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain."

Maybe it doesn't need bolstering. Also, it seems to me that the incumbent administration is under constant attack by its opponents who use "intelligence" for their own political gain.

 

[5stringJeff]

The fact that the article came from the NYT is all I needed to know.

Glad to see that you can copy and paste the Left's talking points.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

GOP_JEFF,

Saw your signature and thought I'd alter it a bit. I'm not intending to spark a huge debate on this but as this board is what it is it may happen:

10 out of 10 terrorists agree: Bush! We attack and he responds by attacking somebody unrelated!

 

[Merlin1047]

"This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain."

It probably would not need bolstering except for the fact that these ridiculous accusations are made simply as a sleazy attempt to discredit the Bush administration.

 

[Comrade]

article

This column reeks!:gross2:

 

[MJDuncan1982]

In my jab I of course meant Iraq - not Afghanistan

 

[freeandfun1]

In my jab I of course meant Iraq - not Afghanistan

Your jab just shows how much you DON'T pay attention to what is said.

 

[Comrade]

GOP_JEFF,

Saw your signature and thought I'd alter it a bit. I'm not intending to spark a huge debate on this but as this board is what it is it may happen:

10 out of 10 terrorists agree: Bush! We attack and he responds by attacking somebody unrelated!

You missed Afganistan then? Or maybe the 9/11 report?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Clarified on the Afghanistan thing. And I believe this shows how much I DO pay attention. 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. One of the members recently compared it to two people at a high school dance - occasionally making eye contact and trying to form something more but each times one or the other not accepting.

 

[Comrade]

Clarified on the Afghanistan thing. And I believe this shows how much I DO pay attention. 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. One of the members recently compared it to two people at a high school dance - occasionally making eye contact and trying to form something more but each times one or the other not accepting.

Wrong, this was specifically what they found,

 

[freeandfun1]

Clarified on the Afghanistan thing. And I believe this shows how much I DO pay attention. 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. One of the members recently compared it to two people at a high school dance - occasionally making eye contact and trying to form something more but each times one or the other not accepting.

Bush never said there had to be a connection to 911. So see, you DON'T pay attention. He said that we would go after ANYBODY that harbored, aided, or supported terrorists. So either you didn't pay attention or you decided to ignore that part.

So, now you will say, "what about Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.", well, each and every country requires a different type of response. But then again, that is probably just TOO much for you or those of your ilk to grasp. Figures.

For one, this VETERAN says, "GO BUSH"!

 

[5stringJeff]

GOP_JEFF,

Saw your signature and thought I'd alter it a bit. I'm not intending to spark a huge debate on this but as this board is what it is it may happen:

10 out of 10 terrorists agree: Bush! We attack and he responds by attacking somebody unrelated!

MJDUNCAN1982,

Your proposal is rejected. Or did you forget that we have been fighting al-Qaeda since October of 2001, and we have already cruched both the Taliban, who was a direct supporter of al-Qaeda, and Saddam, who has many documented ties to terrorism and al-Qaeda?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

The 9/11 Commission found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda not just Iraq and 9/11. And this was most definitely a reason for war.

 

[freeandfun1]

The 9/11 Commission found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda not just Iraq and 9/11. And this was most definitely a reason for war.

Go ahead, continue to ignore the facts. As I said, Bush NEVER said there was a connection between Iraq and 911. Iraq and terrorists? Yes. Iraq and 911? NO!

If you can't post facts, how about just not posting at all? You are CREATING the claim that Bush claimed there was a link between 911 and IRAQ. He never said any such thing and I challenge you to find and post a direct quote where he says that.

 

[freeandfun1]

Why do you LIBS ignore that FACT that we are at war with TERRORISM. Not just AQ?

 

[Comrade]

The 9/11 Commission found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda not just Iraq and 9/11. And this was most definitely a reason for war.

And that's just still wrong. Here's link direct to the report:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Search for "Saddam" there are 22 references you can verify and examples of direct collarborative evidence with Al-Qaeda, do I lie?

I heard this almost three years ago, about how there was no real collaboration with Saddam and Al-Qaeda and now that we've got a massive report from the newly discoled findings among a bi-partisan committee you should forget you ever tried to say this, it's so last month!

Instead, you should pay attention to the Dems and take up the one issue remaining to them, and that 9-11 and Iraq were not linked. Anything else means you are weeks behind the latest new weasel words for liberals. The SOTU 2002 and the SOTU 2003 speeches were pretty clear about this policy and not word about Iraq and 9/11 was needed, then or now.

So focus and read the findings and then we're in business.

 

[insein]

The fact that the article came from the NYT is all I needed to know.

Glad to see that you can copy and paste the Left's talking points.

Saves time from having to write it over again himself.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Why do you LIBS ignore that FACT that we are at war with TERRORISM. Not just AQ?

 

[HGROKIT]

lol - Don't think that was directed at you; but our newest troll THEONE.