Worst Speech of Bush's Presidency

Au -regardless of how you feel about me being a Canadian I must agree with you here. Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam........

You won't change Sturgis' mind on a forum. What will change his mind is when martial law begins......sometime around when conscription begins and no one signs up. :wink:

Sturgis- It would appear that AU1929 either has a bad memory or is unwilling to state the truth.

As a matter of fact, Clinton was the one who hurled missles at Iraq in a preventive strike withou t consulting Congress.

Does AU1929 "forget" that CONGRESS, yes CONGRESS gave President Bush the authority on Oct. 10th and 11th , 2001,in a bi-partisan vote to "ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY".

AU1929 says that the war increased the danger of terrorist attacks.

I don't know how he can say that since he does not know how many terrorist attacks there would have been if we had not gone into Iraq.

He forgets the Cole and other incidents prior to the attacks.

I do know of one attack, Sturgis. Most people seem to have forgotten that 3,000 of our fellow citizens were crushed or burned alive in the WTC. I don't know how the "danger" of that "terrorist attack" was increased by our presence in Iraq since we were not there.

I also know something else, Sturgis. There have been no more terrorist attacks in the USA.

Perhaps AU1929 doesn't care about that but I do.

Why is that? Here's my guess. The gang which conducted the three terror attacks on 11th September didn't believe that the US and its friends would go after them in Afghanistan. But they did. They went right after them. And rightly so and what a smart policy it was. I can imagine bin Laden sitting in his cave crapping himself wondering what was about to happen next as the full strength of the West went after him and the murdering bastards he associated with. He was in the grasp of the West and then...and then...some idiots in the White House decided it would be good to invade Iraq.

Yeah, well, Clinton ruined a dress.

Bush ruined a nation.

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground



War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01



Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)."

The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

Mortkat
Congress gave authorization based on the a stack of misinformation. It also was based upon the premise that invasion was to be as a last resort. Was it? Not by any stretch of the imagination. An attack was the plan of this administration from the outset.
Initially the threat of attack was based on the refusal to allow inspectors and inspections to continue. Since that was no longer a valid argument, inspectors were in place. The Next cry was the presence of WMD's and the facilities to manufacture. The Inspectors were putting a lie to that. Then the last cry was Saddam and his sons had "24 hours to get out of Iraq" What right do you think Bush and the US had to make that demand.
In that regard the world over would make that demand of Bush if they thought they could make it stick.

Stands to reason...considering he is now being targeted for the worst speech of his Presidency. Interesting thing about that...it is called the worst speech of his Presidency. Well two things here...every President has a best speech and a worst speech...Clinton, Ford,Carter, Roosevelt (both Teddy and Franklin), Truman, Wilson, Grant, etc. and the mere fact that it is listed as Bush's worst. Two things on that...he has some 3 years left so if this is his worst, what the hey, it can be over looked and lastly it does not find itself compared to the speeches of other Presidents which may have been even worse. Anyone ever here the blathering in that Gettysburg Address? Talk about long winded....
Look the point is, that every politician has good and bad speeches.

I'm confused. Are we supposed to be looking for two things or three things or four things or five things? The suspense is unbearable.


The Gettysburg Address contains 272 words. It took about two minutes to deliver. Lincoln's speech was preceded by an oration deliverd by Edward Everett that lasted over two hours.

Describing the Gettysburg Address as "long winded," then, makes about as much sense as describing George W. Bush as "articulate."


I hereby declare that, from this day forth, this revelation shall be known throughout the land as "Sturgis's First Law of Political Rhetoric."

Sturgis- You are cooked. You have run into the most brilliant lawyer of our time- Joe from Chicago.

Joe says he is confused. He is. Frequenly.

I want to see what Joe says when the House and the Senate remain in Republican hands in 2006.

I don't know, Strugis, what Joe's training is like but it is certain that they did not teach him that the ideological leanings of the Supreme Court is one of the most important elements in crafting the future of our society. Joe from Chicago must have missed the nomination and appointment made from the man who gave the "poor" speeches< George W. Bush. He must have missed the fact that now, there is a brilliant non-leftist as Chief Judge. He must also be unconscious of the forthcoming appointment of another non-leftist-Judge Alito.

Let the left attempt to denigrate President Bush's speeches. It means nothing. What is important is Roberts, Alito, and perhaps? a replacement for another USSC judge before 2008. Stevens is quite elderly.

And, Sturgis, the left has made no comment about another very very important appointment made by George Bush--The appointment of Dr. Ben Bernanke( One of the President's Economic Advisors) as the Fed. Chief. Maybe they didn't teach Joe from Chicago that this position is far more important to the direction of the economy than anyone who has the presidency.


Bernanke will serve for four years until Hillary does not reappoint him and appoints some lesbian from Yale University.

I hereby declare that "Sturgis' First Law of Political Rhetoric" be supplanted by Joe from Chicago's Law of Left Wing Political Blindness.

Bush Rewrites History to Criticize His Anti-War Critics




http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111505G.shtml

Wow, I'm famous!

And one more thing...I find President Bush to be quite articulate.

Sturgis wrote


Duh! In what language??

English.

Yeah, here he is, being articulate in English.


http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bush-bs.html

Sturgis- We find, again and again, that President Bush is not articulate. The left wing tells us that.

I have a great deal of trouble believing that.

When one of the most well informed policy wonks in the USA, namely, Al Gore, met the "inarticulate" George W. Bush, Gore should have destroyed him.

He did not. In fact, most of the pundits ruled that the THREE DEBATES WERE A DRAW.


How could this be? The policy wonk Al Gore was unable to destroy the "inarticulate" one??

Actually, Al Gore failed more subjects in College than George W. Bush did.

Yeah, right.


Unless they're particularly funny, I rarely if ever point out spelling mistakes. I understand that people make mistakes, and that zeroing in on spelling errors is a rather low form of criticism. But that shouldn't stop you from continuing to highlight your own shortcomings.


I didn't think anyone could do a worse job of defending your positions than you, Sturgis. Then I read Mortogato's post, and I realized that it was possible. And then I read this post of yours, and it was clear that you had taken the lead again.

Wow! Of all the ridiculous posts I've ever seen, this is so far the absolute winner. That stuttering chimp faced halfwit can't string more than five words together without a script and a two hour rehearsal. What rock are you living under?

GW does not have a gift for words. Neither do his writers.