the worse things get----

Mcg
?

You never cease to amaze. Bush uber allus. That is beyond rediculous. By the way tell that to the loved one of the 700 US service people and many thousands of Iraqi's killed to date in Bush's moral war. Or you perhaps should explain it to those lying in hospital missing limbs and etc.

foxfrye gushes, "the president is a man that most Americans find refreshingly decent and honest."

ROFLMAO!!!!

Priceless.

I am not here defending or even trying to defend Bush's actions in going to war with Iraq. Did he believe there were WMD's in Iraq? I don't know. I know a great many democrats and republicans from the previous admin believed he had or was capable of making WMD's at that time. Was he still holding them or capable of making them at the time Bush decided to go to war? I don't know. And I don't think anyone on this forum is in a position to know with absolute certainty either. My posts have only been addressing the initial post of this thread as to why Bush has a great deal of support while things in the Iraq seem to be getting worse as opposed to better.

As I stated, my belief in why this is may be too simplistic, but it is a possible explanation that I think may have some merit.

McGentrix tries a spin with, "Quite a few died as a result of Clinton's dalliance."

Yeah, and 3,000 died while Bush presumably chopped brush at the ranch and worked on his tan -- otherwise doing nothing after receiving the August 6th, 2001 PBD warning of a terrorist attack using airliners.

Obviously you haven't read the memo or the investigation into the memo, but choose instead to read about it from liberal websites. That's the only that can explain your mindset on that memo.

I am not quite sure which but it would seem that the Bush supporters mimic the three blind mice or the monkeys who see no evil and hear no evil.

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, F.B.I. information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The F.B.I. is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are investigating a call to our embassy in the U.A.E. in May saying that a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

au1929-

The Bushites are lost in their left v. right and right v. left paradigm which is exactly where the White House wants them to be.

So what were they supposed to do?

"No one ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

(or is that "misunderstimating"...)

Sad, but true.

Better the devil you know verse the devil you don't know.

devil, get thee behind me!

I think probably I could do a fairly cursory search and come up with at least as many quotes from the previous administration commenting on Saddam's WMD and the threats from al Qaida and bin Laden not to mention quotes from the current crop of Democrats, liberal Republicans, and John Kerry who all had access to the exact same information.

I wonder when the 9/11 commission files its report and it reports that Bush didn't 'lie' or 'misrepresent' the intelligence to the American people, what will his enemies use to bash him with then?

It seems that Woodward's book, that 'smoking gun' book, actually disputes the contention that Bush unilaterally and recklessly went to war. Will that get as much attention here as the unfounded innuendo, allegations, and outright lies being posted about GWB and the administration.

I stand by my conviction that GWB is no saint, no genius, and sometimes has feet of clay, but he's an intelligent, honest, decent man with the best interests of the American people at heart. Over the long term, I think history will be much kinder to him than it will be with some of his predecessors.

BookMark

History cannot be known to mere mortals; we are left to speculate, hoping history is kind to those we hold in high esteem and brutal to those who harm humanity.

In time, I think history will paint George W. Bush as a man of rather limited intellect and enormous priviledge, who was guided by men with dark agendas, and who was something of a religious zealot.

Just as your President Lyndon Johnson, nearly forty years on, has the weight of the Viet Nam war hung around his neck, I think George W. Bush will share a similar kismet.

Foxfyre, Re:

Given an even and balanced report that I suspect we will see as the result of those hearings (The Commissioners assured us unanimous agreement Re. the final report), the report will be "mined" equally by both camps in the search for ammunition for their respective arguments. But as your statement implies this will be of little surprise. This, of course, is not what the commission has been established for. Despite others glee towards the inevitable "Gotcha" moments so perceived, I look forward to learning how we should change the workings of the CIA and FBI that might bring down the much mentioned legal "wall" that seems to have put those involved with counter terrorism at a disadvantage. The wall was a well intentioned effort to secure legal protection for those undergoing criminal investigation and prosecution and prevent the misuse of irrelevant evidence to taint the judicial process. But like a conventional war footing the U.S., and its citizens, are now under physical attack, so the legal system must change somewhat to reflect the changing times.

RE:


I was of the impression, shared by many here on A2K, that Mr. Bush was somewhat intellectually challenged. Reading these excerpts and comments of the 75 interviewees of the Woodward book has changed my opinion of the President's cerebral characteristics. I think CoastalRat's supposition-- that President Bush's poll numbers are, at least partly, explained by the American public's sense that Bush really does care and is driven to protect his fellow citizens -- is supported by the Woodward book's unbiased reporting in this regard. This is comforting, but as I have posted elsewhere, the President's intent must be infused with the backbone of action. This action is bi-cameral: military and diplomatic. So in my mind the president has the job (in Iraq) only half finished. I would like to see V.P. Cheney's influence wane while that of Colin Powell, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Joe Biden and others wax. The Vice President and Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld have accomplished much but it is time for a different mindset. For those that might argue seeking such council is long overdue I would agree.

Could Bush have done things better? This seems a philosophical question at best. I am sure each and every one of us, given the knowledge we now possess, could have done better. The view through the historical rearview mirror always affords perfect clarity. The PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) dated 6 August 2001 is no smoking gun. This text is mostly "historical" but does say that something "was up" but there was little in the way of future specifics that could have helped anyone prevent specific acts of terrorism. History of bomb usage and predictions of aircraft being used in acts of terror, whether as guided missiles (not implied) or involved in hostage exchange tools (assumed use) gives little information to act upon. Indeed, one could argue that trying to "Move Heaven and Earth" to prevent terrorist action might actually work towards these miscreants' ultimate goal by drastically increasing airport/aircraft security and clogging this nation's system of air travel. It is the specificity of good intelligence that allows us to avoid such drastic actions and concentrate on keeping counter terrorism efforts transparent to those consumers of the system. It is also important to remember that every time we prevent a planned terror attack we gain even more information about the bad guy's modus operandi and personnel--invaluable towards further reduction of terrorism.

This indulgence in hindsight is a luxurious but futile exercise-- as is such advice as "we should have not gone into Iraq to begin with". This is, at best, mere hand wringing and, at worst, gloating. Therefore, I am much more interested in the present view through the windshield that will not only guide us through Iraq but will work towards the prevention of future terrorist acts against us. Just as we all regard ourselves as "works in progress", the Woodward book is reason to hope President Bush is in a similar state.

I must mention an observation of mine regarding the wish of many A2kers for a change of administration. There is much hopeful talk of the deselection of G.W. Bush as our president in November of 2004. Given such a desirable event and without further thought towards how members of Al Qaeda might interpret Bush's ouster, I have yet to see the other half of that process. Who would take the helm and lead us? I would suggest the answer lies in that candidate that offers a legitimate set of solutions. This question is also meant to stimulate those, such as myself, who feel kind of "Locked into" the presidential choice of Mr. Bush. Might there be others that, if not possible to be elected in November, would, at least, be a source of different and more innovative solutions? So what are the alternative remedies to this problem? In addition, we must not forget to ask all those potential candidates how we are to handle the nightmare on the horizon: North Korea.

Respectfully,

JM


P.S. Many thanks to Infowarrior for his posting of the PDB in question.

James, this is perhaps the best piece of writing I've seen yet on A2K. If only everybody could give up the oneupmanship and get serious about deciding on and choosing the best direction for America.

The only question mark I had in your piece was whether the bipartisan 9/11 commission will come up with useful recommendations for reforms. Some of the sessions I watched were so heavily partisan with a tendency for 'gotcha' that I am maybe a bit more pessimistic than you about that. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, however.

With a few exceptions, it does seem that the general tone across the A2K family is a bit more tolerant and thoughtful lately. Every time I'm ready to throw up my hands in despair, some of my fellow Americans step forward to give me renewed hope.

Thank you.

Greenumbrella,

Welcome to A2K!

RE:

I am more hopeful. With the advent of technology it is becoming increasingly quite possible to puncture the filter of history through which the "Victors" inform posterity. Nowadays almost every article and thought worth writing down is recorded and archived.

With the declassification process (Presidential memoirs and such) we see not only the injection of new relevant data into debates of history but the increasing awareness that we may not have all the data about a given subject. This calls for not only humility in our real-time judgments of others and their historical actions but tolerance towards those that hold an opinion orthogonal or even opposite to ours. Sometimes I find the other side turns out to be correct and myself wrong, fortunately for all of us this is always an extremely rare occasion! :wink:

How G.W. Bush is remembered by history will be a function of what was perceived to be his defining issue. LBJ's is the Vietnam conflict vs. U.S. citizens against the U.S. Participation. Some might jump to the conclusion that Iraq may be Mr. Bush's definition. But if Our President is re-elected it might be his efforts in establishing better education thru government vouchers! We just don't know yet. Some think LBJ's War on Poverty (The Great Society) and his expansion of JFK's/RFK's quest for civil rights in America is his most valuable legacy but he is remembered for Vietnam. So it goes.

JM

Brilliant anaylisis James.

That really is one of the best and most insightful posts I've seen in a long while. Are you a journalist by chance?

Regardless of who you support, one can only hope that such intelligent moderate voices post more often here.

I am however not as hopeful as you of this age of information. While I sincerely hope that the increase in communications will foster better understanding between opposing views. The past few years has created such a large and seemingly irrepairable rift between the two parties that I remain uncertain as to where we are headed.

As long as information sources continue to have an agenda and interpret information in a way to further this agenda, more and more radical individuals from both sides will find many sources through which to further solidfy their beliefs.