4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 09:32 am
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=99816
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 09:46 am
Bush is adamant; he's not going to change course. General Petraeus said seven to ten more years. Bush sacrificed nothing - and now the GOP congressmen are running around with their heads cut off.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 05:07 am
Poor Bush; he's such a loser the only thing he can fall back on is 9/11.

There may be more 9/11's in the future and if so we can thank George Bush. His blunders and unnecessary invasion of Iraq has made AQ a bigger and stronger terrorist organization.

Quote:
Edwards: Bush's Iraq/September 11 remarks 'border on the delusional'
07/12/2007
Filed by Nick Juliano

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards slammed President Bush for connecting insurgents in Iraq with the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept. 11, 2001. The former Democratic senator said that the president's remarks "border on the delusional," and accused him of ignoring his own key role in allowing al Qaeda to gain strength in Iraq.

"The president's remarks today defending his Iraq policy without regard to actual facts border on the delusional," Edwards said in a statement released Thursday, hours after a Bush press conference. "The president claimed that the same people attacking U.S. troops today are the ones who perpetrated 9/11."

Speaking to reporters in the newly opened White House briefing room, Bush defended his war strategy and continued to conflate the war in Iraq with the terror attacks that brought down the World Trade Center.

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th," Bush said.

Edwards said that assertion ignores recent history, and the fact that there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to US troops invading.

"It must be nice to live in a world where your actions have no consequences," he said. "There was no group called Al Qaeda in Iraq before the president's disastrous mismanagement of the war gave them a foothold, a fact the president flagrantly ignores."


Democrats in the Senate this week are debating a Pentagon funding bill to which they are attaching measures aimed at reducing the US presence in Iraq. Keying off an interim report issued today that shows the Iraqi government is meeting less than half is required benchmarks for political progress, war critics are saying now is the time to begin bringing troops home.

"We've been told over and over again we can't expect a military victory in Iraq; it will take a political victory for us to finally see stability," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday. "And yet, as the benchmark assessment reports tell us, there's little evidence of political progress in Iraq today, and certainly more violence and more death."

Sen. Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Bush's report was an attempt to "put the best face on a failed strategy."

"Even the President's own portrait cannot paint over the reality on the ground: our strategy in Iraq is failing," Clinton said in a prepared statement.

Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., have introduced an amendment this week that would begin a drawdown of US forces within four months with a goal of having only a limited US presence in Iraq by April 31, 2008. That amendment has drawn support from some Republicans, including Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, as public opinion continues to turn against President Bush's strategy in Iraq.

Tying the war in Iraq to the hunt for al Qaeda, Sen. John D. Rockefeller, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said invading Iraq prevented the US from "finishing them off when we had the chance in 2002 and 2003." He pinned the blame for reports of al Qaeda's increasing strength firmly on the decision to continue occupying Iraq.

"If we really want to protect our homeland and our citizens from attack, we must end our involvement in the Iraqi civil war and refocus on destroying the al Qaida organization that still wants to attack us here at home," Rockefeller said.

President Bush indicated that he would continue his policy of vetoing any Congressional measure that attempted to establish a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

At a White House press conference, a reporter asked Bush if he was still "committed to vetoing" any deadlines.

"You mean in this interim period? Yeah," Bush said. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops."

Bush insisted that he was "interested in their opinion" and would continue to work with Congress, but Bush said he hoped an amendment that would have nearly all troops out of Iraq by the end of April does not pass the Senate.

The only way Congress will be able to end the war, Bush implied, would be to cut off funding for the military mission.

"Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops," Bush said. "What you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned. ... I don't think that would be good for the country."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 05:33 am


One poster started a a new thread
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2007 12:14 pm
Anyone for a lesson in logic? If Bush didn't authorize torture of our prisoners, why is he changing the rules now?

Bush alters rules for interrogations

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush signed an executive order Friday spelling out new interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects that bar cruel and inhumane treatment, humiliation or denigration of prisoners' religious beliefs.

The White House declined to say whether the CIA currently has a detention and interrogation program, but said if it did, it must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the executive order. The order targets captured al-Qaida terrorists who have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2007 03:17 pm
Hey c.i., you posted on IV and there's a new thread V running.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2007 04:04 pm
xingu wrote:
Poor Bush; he's such a loser the only thing he can fall back on is 9/11.

There may be more 9/11's in the future and if so we can thank George Bush. His blunders and unnecessary invasion of Iraq has made AQ a bigger and stronger terrorist organization.

Quote:
Edwards: Bush's Iraq/September 11 remarks 'border on the delusional'
07/12/2007
Filed by Nick Juliano

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards slammed President Bush for connecting insurgents in Iraq with the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept. 11, 2001. The former Democratic senator said that the president's remarks "border on the delusional," and accused him of ignoring his own key role in allowing al Qaeda to gain strength in Iraq.

"The president's remarks today defending his Iraq policy without regard to actual facts border on the delusional," Edwards said in a statement released Thursday, hours after a Bush press conference. "The president claimed that the same people attacking U.S. troops today are the ones who perpetrated 9/11."

Speaking to reporters in the newly opened White House briefing room, Bush defended his war strategy and continued to conflate the war in Iraq with the terror attacks that brought down the World Trade Center.

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th," Bush said.

Edwards said that assertion ignores recent history, and the fact that there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to US troops invading.

"It must be nice to live in a world where your actions have no consequences," he said. "There was no group called Al Qaeda in Iraq before the president's disastrous mismanagement of the war gave them a foothold, a fact the president flagrantly ignores."


Democrats in the Senate this week are debating a Pentagon funding bill to which they are attaching measures aimed at reducing the US presence in Iraq. Keying off an interim report issued today that shows the Iraqi government is meeting less than half is required benchmarks for political progress, war critics are saying now is the time to begin bringing troops home.

"We've been told over and over again we can't expect a military victory in Iraq; it will take a political victory for us to finally see stability," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday. "And yet, as the benchmark assessment reports tell us, there's little evidence of political progress in Iraq today, and certainly more violence and more death."

Sen. Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Bush's report was an attempt to "put the best face on a failed strategy."

"Even the President's own portrait cannot paint over the reality on the ground: our strategy in Iraq is failing," Clinton said in a prepared statement.

Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., have introduced an amendment this week that would begin a drawdown of US forces within four months with a goal of having only a limited US presence in Iraq by April 31, 2008. That amendment has drawn support from some Republicans, including Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, as public opinion continues to turn against President Bush's strategy in Iraq.

Tying the war in Iraq to the hunt for al Qaeda, Sen. John D. Rockefeller, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said invading Iraq prevented the US from "finishing them off when we had the chance in 2002 and 2003." He pinned the blame for reports of al Qaeda's increasing strength firmly on the decision to continue occupying Iraq.

"If we really want to protect our homeland and our citizens from attack, we must end our involvement in the Iraqi civil war and refocus on destroying the al Qaida organization that still wants to attack us here at home," Rockefeller said.

President Bush indicated that he would continue his policy of vetoing any Congressional measure that attempted to establish a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

At a White House press conference, a reporter asked Bush if he was still "committed to vetoing" any deadlines.

"You mean in this interim period? Yeah," Bush said. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops."

Bush insisted that he was "interested in their opinion" and would continue to work with Congress, but Bush said he hoped an amendment that would have nearly all troops out of Iraq by the end of April does not pass the Senate.

The only way Congress will be able to end the war, Bush implied, would be to cut off funding for the military mission.

"Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops," Bush said. "What you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned. ... I don't think that would be good for the country."


If there are 9/11 style attacks AFTER Bush leaves office,then you cant blame him.
It will be the responsibility of the President at that time,because that Pres did nothing to prevent it.

You cannot blame Bush for any 9/11 style attacks after he is out of office,unless you are willing to change your former position about not blaming Clinton for 9/11.

If you are going to blame Bush for what happens after he leaves office,you must agree to blame Clinton for 9/11 this time.

You cant have it both ways.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 02:34 am
Yeah, well - there's one tiny difference between Bush and Clinton's war legacies in the middle east - Clinton didn't invade and occupy and commit hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops for perpetuity and cause a cauldron of terrorist activity to be attracted to Iraq. But, no one expects you to cop to that sort of insignificant detail.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 02:39 am
McTag wrote:
Hey c.i., you posted on IV and there's a new thread V running.


That means, you're posting on thread 4 and there's a new thread 5 running.

Embarrassed :wink:
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 05:20 am
MM wrote:
You cannot blame Bush for any 9/11 style attacks after he is out of office,unless you are willing to change your former position about not blaming Clinton for 9/11.


Wrong MM. When Clinton was in office he tried to kill Osama but failed. The first eight months in office Bush ignored Osama and did nothing.

Bush ignored Osama again when he redirected the majority of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. In so doing he allowed AQ and the Taliban to regroup and grow in strength.

His invasion of Iraq provided a new reason for Muslims to hate America. Iraq allowed AQ to train new recruits and export them to other countries. It gave them a battlefield training ground that allowed them to test new tactics. Roadside bombs were exported to Afghanistan from Iraq, thanks to George Bush. Iraq's invasion provided the hate Muslims needed to get recruits in foreign countries to commit terrorist attacks. One of those countries may be ours.

One wonders what it would be like today if Bush were less ideological and more pragmatic. If he had concentrated our resources on killing the heads of AQ, destroying the organization and leaving Iraq alone.

Bush's actions have provided a platform on which killing and violence in the Middle East will continue on long after he leaves office. And that violence will not be just in the Middle East. It will be in other countries. And ours may be one of them.

George Bush said the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

I disagree. It would have been better off without George Bush.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 07:31 am
Iraq War Costs Approach $567 Billion, Congressional Report Says

Quote:
July 19 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of the war in Iraq will exceed the half-trillion dollar mark once Congress completes its work on a defense measure for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, the Congressional Research Service said in a report.

The defense budget for fiscal 2008 that's in various stages of congressional deliberation requests $141.7 billion to fight terrorism including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``If Congress approves these requests, total funding would reach about $567 billion for Iraq, $157 billion for Afghanistan'' with the remainder for enhanced U.S. homeland security, CRS analyst Amy Belasco said in a July 16 report released yesterday.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 07:54 am
MM, it is indisputable that Iraq, following our invasion, has been a great breeding ground for terrorists, including al-Qaida. Thus, a future 9/11 may indeed be blamed on Bush's war on Iraq.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 01:34 pm
What do you blame the first 911 on, Advocate?

Prisons are breeding grounds for more crime when the criminals gain parole as well, but I suppose you would advocate eliminating prisons?

Many cultures have been breeding grounds for terrorists long before Iraq, Advocate, by virtue of the educational systems and what the parents teach the children. Teaching hate does not gender positive results.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 01:49 pm
What's worse is our invasion of Iraq, and killing of innocent men, women and children. That breeds hate more than anything.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 03:19 pm
Unless you've been to Iraq with our military on operations, I suggest you cool it imposter. It is people like you spewing half truths and teaching fellow citizens the same stuff that is gendering more hatred than anything.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 03:38 pm
okie, I don't need to be in Iraq to know what's going on; and it's not from the white house gang who loves to minimize all the problems they created.

From IraqBodyCounty.org:

Civilian deaths from coalition forces:
Minimum: 67,905
Maximum: 74,296


This administration can't even be honest about the number of soldiers killed by our war in Iraq; they don't count those who have returned home with injuries, and died from those injuries at home.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 03:40 pm
okie, Truth never gendered hatred; but ignorance and lies do most of the time. It's called trust and credibility; of which you seem vacant.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 03:51 pm
Maybe we do need two threads running, to pour vitriol and bile on GWB.

Anybody here seen Foxy?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 07:30 pm
The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."

The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."

<snip>

Scaife has been a loyal backer of Republican politicians and many conservative causes, and funded a network of investigations into President Clinton during the 1990s.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 08:59 am
okie wrote:
What do you blame the first 911 on, Advocate?

Prisons are breeding grounds for more crime when the criminals gain parole as well, but I suppose you would advocate eliminating prisons?

Many cultures have been breeding grounds for terrorists long before Iraq, Advocate, by virtue of the educational systems and what the parents teach the children. Teaching hate does not gender positive results.



The first 9/11 attack was largely the fault of Bush. He received strong warnings that al-Qaida planned to attack the USA, and that planes may be used to crash into targets. He totally ignored the warnings, and later made the excuse that the intell didn't say what planes would be used, and exactly when.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 01:50:02