0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 02:00 pm
blatham wrote:
Like a big fat DUH! on the leak question.

a) "leak" by a top White House official to the media in order to smear an individual and therebye take attention away from revelations regarding deceitful comments made by the White House promoting going to war

b) "leak" by someone down in the government apparatus that illuminates possible criminal policy set by the White House

If you hold that the White House is god, then the first leak will look justifiable and responsible.

If you think that the White House (regardless of who sits in it) ought to be scrutinized to ensure honesty, honor, and lawfulness, then the first leak will look pretty bloody ugly and the second will look as unfortunate but necessary as whistle-blowing is.

So please cease with the 'any leak equals any leak' doofusness.


Sorry, Bernie. You have it wrong. The first leak was to show the Wilson was not sent to Niger by Cheney, as he alleged, but was sent at the suggestion of his wife who works for the CIA. The only smear that was done was to reveal his falsehood in his claim he was sent by Cheney.

And no criminal policy in the eavesdropping plan. Just another tool to combat terrorism that the NYT took away from the government.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 02:04 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I don't think she was covert -- it certainly hasn't been shown that she was.

Whatever the motivation of the leak, one should look at the effect. Revealing a tool of the government to combat terrorism impedes National Security interests, and is far worse


You ask for proof in sentence one.
Provide proof for your claim in sentence three.

And whatever the effect of a leak (or any action), our civil and criminal law does not disregard motive.


Common sense, blatham, does not require proof. Whereas establishing Plame is covert is a legal prerequisite to whether or not revealing her identity was a criminal act -- thus strict proof is essential and required.

Revealing to the world that the US was secretly eavesdropping on domestic terrorists, contrary to its policies, obviously took away a tool to combat terrorism. How can you seriously claim otherwise?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 02:25 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
Whatever the motivation of the leak, one should look at the effect. Revealing a tool of the government to combat terrorism impedes National Security interests, and is far worse than letting the world know that Wilson's wife works for the CIA and that's why he got the Niger gig. Minimal negative effect, if any. One possible effect is the CIA might push for stronger laws to protect the identity of persons they conceive to be "classified."


What was the public benefit of outing Plame? If she had been using her name to establish contacts with people in sensitive positions, and if she got information from them that was valuable from an intelligence standpoint, and if finding out that she worked for the CIA caused those sources to become unavailable, then revealing her identity most certainly would impede National Security interests, as you call it. So assuming that both leaks impeded national security in some way, what was the public benefit of outing Plame? There was none. Outing her revealed no wrong doing on the part of the CIA or the administration (except of course, for the act of leaking itself).


What was the purpose in assigning Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger? Particularly if the fact that his wife worked for the CIA was sensitive? Surely they must have known that the choice of Wilson, who was certainly not otherwise qualified for the assignment, would be questioned. Did Wilson seriously think he was going to be able to come back, slam the administration, lie that he was sent at the request of Cheney's office, and not get called on it?

If Plame's identity was so super-secret, such that revealing it would impede National Security interests, why would they risk having it revealed by sending her husband on a CIA mission?

Quote:
Letting the American people know that the US government does in fact spy on its citizens is a huge public benefit.


It's a huge benefit to the terrorists in this country.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 03:18 pm
Tico,

Well said.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:15 pm
This is great .... From the President's address right now:

Quote:
Since the removal of Saddam, this war - like other wars in our history - has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols - fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists - has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation - and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims - a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals - to de-moralize free nations … to drive us out of the Middle East … to spread an empire of fear across that region … and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield - and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaida to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere - they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq … in Afghanistan … in Southeast Asia … and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens - they would be on the offense, and headed our way.

September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq … we were not in Afghanistan … but the terrorists attacked us anyway - and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad … removing their safe havens … and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.


That was a good speech. We need to hear more of these.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Had anyone in the administration intentionally leaked her name to harm her or her husband, I think you would have seen plenty of condemnation from the right.


So, like I was saying to mysteryman, no condemnation from the right.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:37 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
What was the purpose in assigning Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger? Particularly if the fact that his wife worked for the CIA was sensitive? Surely they must have known that the choice of Wilson, who was certainly not otherwise qualified for the assignment, would be questioned. Did Wilson seriously think he was going to be able to come back, slam the administration, lie that he was sent at the request of Cheney's office, and not get called on it?


Quote:
Ambassador Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998. In that capacity he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, He was one of the principal architecs of President Clinton's historic trip to Africa in March 1998.

Ambassador Wilson was the Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces, Europe, 1995-1997. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic and to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe from 1992 to 1995. From 1998 to 1991, Ambassador Wilson served in Baghdad, Iraq as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy. During ''Desert Shield'' he was the acting Ambassador and was responsible for the negotiations that resulted in the release of several hundred American hostages. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before the launching of ''Desert Storm.''

Ambassador Wilson was a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 until 1998. His early assignments included Niamey, Niger, 1976-1978; Lome, Togo, 1978-79; the State Department Brueau of African Affairs, 1979-1981; and Pretoria, South Africa, 1981-1982.

In 1982, he was appointed Deputy Chief of Mission in Bujumbura, Burundi. In 1985-1986, he served in the offices of Senator Albert Gore and the House Majority Whip, Representative Thomas Foley, as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow. He was Deputy Chief of Mission in Brazzaville, Congo, 1986-88, prior to his assignment to Baghdad.
http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html


Quote:
If Plame's identity was so super-secret, such that revealing it would impede National Security interests, why would they risk having it revealed by sending her husband on a CIA mission?


How would sending Joe Wison to Niger reveal Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA?

Quote:
Quote:
Letting the American people know that the US government does in fact spy on its citizens is a huge public benefit.


It's a huge benefit to the terrorists in this country.


Like I said elsewhere, the terrorists already assumed the worst about our government. It was only naive Americans who thought otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:14 pm
Joe Wilson was certainly well-qualified to sip tea with the Niger diplomats.

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
If Plame's identity was so super-secret, such that revealing it would impede National Security interests, why would they risk having it revealed by sending her husband on a CIA mission?


How would sending Joe Wison to Niger reveal Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA?


Due to the fact that his role might be investigated.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Letting the American people know that the US government does in fact spy on its citizens is a huge public benefit.


It's a huge benefit to the terrorists in this country.


Like I said elsewhere, the terrorists already assumed the worst about our government. It was only naive Americans who thought otherwise.


You really think you know what the terrorists are doing or not doing? I find that thought to be naive.

The eavesdropping program you are aghast about had apparently prevented at least a couple specific terrorist attacks that we know about.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:22 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
If Plame's identity was so super-secret, such that revealing it would impede National Security interests, why would they risk having it revealed by sending her husband on a CIA mission?


How would sending Joe Wison to Niger reveal Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA?


Due to the fact that his role might be investigated.


Except that she had been taking measures to conceal her employment, so that's not likely. And the purpose again of disclosing her alias and her employment with the CIA? To show that it wasn't Cheney who sent him? What difference would that have made to the conclusions he drew? He still went, and he still reported on what he found.

Quote:
You really think you know what the terrorists are doing or not doing? I find that thought to be naive.


Well, you apparently think you know what they are doing. How else can you conclude that the disclosure of this program changes their behavior?

Quote:
The eavesdropping program you are aghast about had apparently prevented at least a couple specific terrorist attacks that we know about.


Forgive me if I don't jump to credulity when this administration says such things. They don't have a very good record with the truth.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:34 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
If Plame's identity was so super-secret, such that revealing it would impede National Security interests, why would they risk having it revealed by sending her husband on a CIA mission?


How would sending Joe Wison to Niger reveal Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA?


Due to the fact that his role might be investigated.


Except that she had been taking measures to conceal her employment, so that's not likely. And the purpose again of disclosing her alias and her employment with the CIA? To show that it wasn't Cheney who sent him? What difference would that have made to the conclusions he drew? He still went, and he still reported on what he found.


Except apparently quite a few reporters in D.C. knew she worked for the CIA. The purpose of revealing that she worked for the CIA was to explain that Joe Wilson was sent there by the CIA at the suggestion of his wife, who worked for the CIA, not the disinformation that Wilson asserted ... that he had been sent at the request of Cheney's office.

FD wrote:
Quote:
You really think you know what the terrorists are doing or not doing? I find that thought to be naive.


Well, you apparently think you know what they are doing. How else can you conclude that the disclosure of this program changes their behavior?


I rely on the fact that several planned attacks were thwarted in the successful application of this secret program.

FD wrote:
Quote:
The eavesdropping program you are aghast about had apparently prevented at least a couple specific terrorist attacks that we know about.


Forgive me if I don't jump to credulity when this administration says such things. They don't have a very good record with the truth.


You don't believe the leakers who revealed this information to the NYT?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:46 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Except apparently quite a few reporters in D.C. knew she worked for the CIA. The purpose of revealing that she worked for the CIA was to explain that Joe Wilson was sent there by the CIA at the suggestion of his wife, who worked for the CIA, not the disinformation that Wilson asserted ... that he had been sent at the request of Cheney's office.


And again, it makes no difference to the conclusions he drew. So either it was to call him a liar (about something that was not relevant) or to out his wife, neither of which is a service to the American people.

Quote:
You don't believe the leakers who revealed this information to the NYT?


You have some evidence that the people who leaked the program were the same officials who said that it had helped prevent attacks? And if so, and if it's true, can you show that going through a judge and getting a warrant would have kept them from preventing those attacks?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 09:54 pm
And for the record, Wilson didn't say that Cheney sent him. This is from the article he published.

Quote:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.


I apologize that the source is commondreams, but I don't have any reason to believe that they modified it and it was the only copy I could find still online. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:07 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
You don't believe the leakers who revealed this information to the NYT?


You have some evidence that the people who leaked the program were the same officials who said that it had helped prevent attacks? And if so, and if it's true, can you show that going through a judge and getting a warrant would have kept them from preventing those attacks?


Here's the link to the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE. Do a little careful reading, and I believe you will reach the same conclusion I did. Be sure to read all the way to where they discuss the concern that the NSA would get info under it's warrantless search during a period when the FBI wasn't monitoring due to technical problems.

I don't know sufficient facts to know whether getting a warrant would have impacted the learning of these attacks.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:08 pm
Quote:
Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," The New York Times, 7/6/03)


Quote:
Joe Wilson: "What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:57 pm
Rudy gets it.

[quote]Taking Liberties With the Nation's Security

by Rudolph W. Giuliani
YESTERDAY the Senate failed to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, as a Democratic-led filibuster prevented a vote. This action - which leaves the act, key elements of which are due to expire on Dec. 31, in limbo - represents a grave potential threat to the nation's security. I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work. The terrorists who attacked us seek to kill innocent men, women and children of all races and creeds. They seek to destroy our liberties. They willingly kill themselves in their effort to bring death and suffering to as many innocents as they can, here in this country or anywhere in the world where freedom has a foothold.

In October 2001, after six weeks of intense scrutiny and debate, Congress passed the Patriot Act overwhelmingly (98 to 1 in the Senate and 356 to 66 in the House). We had already received clear signals about our enemies' intentions, in the first attacks against the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the Navy destroyer Cole two years after that. Despite the abundance of warning signs, it took Sept. 11 to wake us to the dangers we face.

The central provisions of the Patriot Act allow law enforcement and the intelligence community to share information. This might seem elementary, but for years law enforcement had been stymied by a legal wall that prevented agencies from sharing information. For four years now, inter-agency collaboration, made possible by the Patriot Act, has played an important role in preventing another day like Sept. 11. The act's provisions helped make possible the investigations in Lackawanna, N.Y., and Portland, Ore., in which 12 people were ultimately convicted for attempts to aid Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

So what happened in Washington? The House voted on Wednesday to renew the act; it stalled in the Senate. If the Senate fails to approve the extension, the government will be forced to revert in many ways to our pre-Sept. 11 methods. Sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire on Dec. 31, including the key information-sharing ones.

It is simply false to claim, as some of its critics do, that this bill does not respond to concerns about civil liberties. The four-year extension of the Patriot Act, as passed by the House, would not only reauthorize the expiring provisions - allowing our Joint Terrorism Task Force, National Counterterrorism Center and Terrorist Screening Center to continue their work uninterrupted - it would also make a number of common-sense clarifications and add dozens of additional civil liberties safeguards.

Concerns have been raised about the so-called library records provision; the bill adds safeguards. The same is true for roving wiretaps, "sneak and peek" searches and access to counsel and courts, as well as many others concerns raised by groups like the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Given these improvements, there is simply no compelling argument for going backward in the fight against terrorism. Perhaps a reminder is in order. The bipartisan 9/11 commission described a vivid example of how the old ways hurt us. In the summer of 2001, an F.B.I. agent investigating two individuals we now know were hijackers on Sept. 11 asked to share information with another team of agents. This request was refused because of the wall. The agent's response was tragically prescient: "Someday, someone will die - and wall or not - the public will not understand why we were not more effective."

How quickly we forget.
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 11:13 pm
Too good not to share!

Quote:

Iraq Vote Leaves Dems Looking Like the Losers


[...]

Yee-haw! And, if that sounds unfair, pick almost any recent statement by a big-time Dem cowboy and tell me how exactly it would differ from the pep talks Zarqawi gives his dwindling band of head-hackers -- Dean arguing that America can't win in Iraq, Barbara Boxer demanding the troops begin withdrawing on Dec. 15, John Kerry accusing American soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, Jack Murtha declaring that the U.S. Army is utterly broken. Pepper 'em with a handful of "Praise be to Allahs" and any one of those statements could have been uttered by Zarqawi.

[...]

Bush lied, people dyed. Their fingers. That's what this is about: Millions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis beaming as they emerge from polling stations and hold up their purple fingers after the freest, fairest election ever held in the Arab world. "Liberal" in the American sense is a dirty word because it's come to stand for a shriveled parochial obsolescent irrelevance, of which ''Good Night, and Good Luck,'' Clooney's dreary little retread of the McCarthy years, is merely the latest example. (Clooney says he wants more journalists to "speak truth to power," which is why I'm insulting his movie.)

The Anglo-American political tradition is the most successful in the world in part because of the concept of "loyal opposition." Yes, the party out of office opposes the party in office and hopes to supplant it, but not at the expense of the broader political culture. A party that winds up cheerleading for a deranged loser death cult is the very definition of pointless self-defeating sour oppositionism. So, as Zarqawi flails, Dean and Murtha and Kerry flail ever more pathetically, too. Just wait till the WMD turn up.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:29 am
President's Address to the Nation
The Oval Office


9:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In the coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed, and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.

President George W. Bush addresses the nation Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005, from the Oval Office of the White House. Said the President, "Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home in Iraq, Afghanistan or other dangerous places. Our Nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops." White House photo by Eric Draper This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.

All who had a part in this achievement -- Iraqis, and Americans and our coalition partners -- can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead.

From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism, and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

He was given an ultimatum -- and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid a -- the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant -- only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.

Since the removal of Saddam, this war, like other wars in our history, has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols, fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists, has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we're solving.

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region, and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way.

September the 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.

The work in Iraq has been especially difficult -- more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi security forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal, unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose, and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult -- it doesn't mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.

America, our coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal -- a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists, and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.

We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal -- a strategy I've been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements.

First, our coalition will remain on the offense -- finding and clearing out the enemy, transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units, and building up the Iraqi security forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead, and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

Second, we're helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's people are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love -- and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" And he responded, "I am Iraqi."

Third, after a number of setbacks, our coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure -- and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic -- and that optimism is justified.

In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction -- we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor, and I will not allow it.

We're approaching a new year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice -- from our military, their families, and the Iraqi people. We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward. As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders -- not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory -- and that is the road that will take them home.

In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war. Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work. And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war, to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing, and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I don't expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me, as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much -- but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission, and, Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, in a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, goodwill to men."

Thank you, and good night.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:47 am
THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS

"I think younger workers - first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government - promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is" GW May 4, 2005
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:50 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Here's the link to the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE. Do a little careful reading, and I believe you will reach the same conclusion I did. Be sure to read all the way to where they discuss the concern that the NSA would get info under it's warrantless search during a period when the FBI wasn't monitoring due to technical problems.


That's the second time I've read it and I can't come to the same conclusions you have.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 07:53 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," The New York Times, 7/6/03)


Quote:
Joe Wilson: "What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)


Not sure what your point is. You seem to be making my argument for me that Wilson didn't say that Cheney's office sent him, he said the CIA sent him in order to answer questions for the VP's office. That's something that has not been disproven. Your second quote is incomplete so I have no idea what he was accusing the VP's office of.

But let me just bring you all back to the point of this whole discussion. There was no public benefit to outing Plame. There IS a public benefit to knowing that our government is spying on us without a court order.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 07:14:45