Someone should tell Bush about Santa -- he's still sending a wish list to the North Pole. No. 1 wish:
show me the WMD!!!
Leave Bill alone - he's being honored this weekend with the release of "Kill Bill Vol. II" He's also assured me that isn't one of Clinton's discarded cigars.
[/QUOTE]Can you seriously imagine any other person who might have been in the presidency at 9-11 responding much differently (aside from Iraq, of course)? The number of times a person says he is brave or smart or resolved or has a big dick, to that proportion you can profitably assume he probably doesn't or hasn't or isn't. Bush's resolve is show time. It's 'war president' presentation. It's carl rove's script....for goodness sake, bill.
Quote:
Thanks for that, blatham. A bit of reason.
Lightwizard wrote:Someone should tell Bush about Santa -- he's still sending a wish list to the North Pole. No. 1 wish:
show me the WMD!!!
And those funny looking humped-back reindeer pulls his sleigh through the desert.
Bush: "I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even though I know what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we set up the independent commission.
Ilook forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm."(emphasis added).
Does anyone else find this statement one of the most honest -- and thus one of the most astoundingly idiotic -- things ever uttered by Bush?
I wonder how much news coverage this gets tomorrow.
Angie, I care about the humans (Iraqi's, and Bush's actions help them in MY opinion. I believe this might be the first time I've ever directly defended Bush. If you've read many of my posts, you'll notice I've suggested our strength comes with the responsibility to help many times (just like Bush did tonight). If you are really interested... I'll be happy to point out where.
As for Vietnam... stop it. We are not going to lose. Most everyone knows we can't. It would be WAY to dangerous.
Kicky... When necessary; YES we should invade countries to deliver freedom. I sound much more like a simpleton than normal when I answer short, but I'll be happy to point you, too, to my longer answers as well.
Blatham, If I say I'm going to do a thing; I'll repeat it as often as I'm asked about it too. Does that make me less credible?
(BTW, I'm also hung like a horse)
Oh, man, I missed it. but I'm pretty sure the Globe will have the full transcript tomorrow.
Funny Kicky and LW, but LW
, you followed your funny with gross.
soserene wrote:
SANTA!!! YOU CAME!!!!
Wasn't that line in Bad Santa?
joefromchicago wrote:Bush: "I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even though I know what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we set up the independent commission.
Ilook forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm."(emphasis added).
Does anyone else find this statement one of the most honest -- and thus one of the most astoundingly idiotic -- things ever uttered by Bush?
I wonder how much news coverage this gets tomorrow.
LOL
Precisely why they let him out into the sunlight so seldom. I thought he was going to leave it at the earlier remark on the Libyan turkey farm, with it's implied connection to Iraqi weapons, but he just couldn't resist making the connection explicit...perhaps because his speech writers had to make it explicit to him this afternoon.
Okay, so I know that is a fresh cigar. However, when you say you're hung like a horse, is that a seahorse?
Turkey farm? I'm not ready to gobble that.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Kicky... When necessary; YES we should invade countries to deliver freedom. I sound much more like a simpleton than normal when I answer short, but I'll be happy to point you, too, to my longer answers as well.
I guess my question then is whether it was necessary to spread freedom in Iraq at this time. I don't think it was. Actually, I don't even think that is the real reason we went to war in Iraq. I think we did it to gain a strategic foothold in the region, which is not the same thing. I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on this issue.
Lightwizard wrote:Spreading freedom by force is tantamount to spreading a blanket using a steam roller.
So if not by force, how would you spread freedom ?
can "freedom" be "spread?" Certainly if it can, example is probably the best method, and we are not doing that.
hobitbob wrote:can "freedom" be "spread?" Certainly if it can, example is probably the best method, and we are not doing that.
No real solutions ? Just be a good example ?
How about this:
We put Sadaam back in power, give him a few billion dollars and tell him we're truly sorry. He'll whip the country back into shape in a matter of weeks. Lets face it, these people don't want freedom. They wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it.
CerealKiller wrote:hobitbob wrote:can "freedom" be "spread?" Certainly if it can, example is probably the best method, and we are not doing that.
No real solutions ? Just be a good example ?
How about this:
We put Sadaam back in power, give him a few billion dollars and tell him we're truly sorry. He'll whip the country back into shape in a matter of weeks. Lets face it, these people don't want freedom. They wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it.
So, America gained freedom because someone else sent a big army in and whupped em?
We're talking about present day Iraq, not America 200 plus years ago. If you've got a better idea in how to help these people I'm all ears.
The primary point the president made regarding Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to stability in the Middle East and, because Iraq harbored terrorists and funded terrorists, was a threat to the rest of the world. 9/11 was the wake up call. We are no longer protected by oceans. We can sit and dig in and wait to be hit again and then retaliate, or we can take the fight to terrorists of the world.
The United States waited for a long time looking the other way while Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jews. We finally waded in and, along with others, put a stop to it. Though on a much smaller scale, the atrocities in Iraq were just as horrendous and the comparison of going to war against the Nazis is a much better comparison than trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam.
It's just this time that the terrorists took the fight to us first. And the president put the terrorist-harboring countries on notice at the very beginning - if you fund terrorists, if you harbor terrorists, if you commit terrorism, you are a terrorist.
This I think should be the debate. Is it better to take the fight to them? Or wait until they bring it to us before we act?
This I think was the thesis of the president's speech tonight.
