or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Speaking of Saddam and bin Laden... |
Itsdb |
06/29/05 |
It seems the main thing the left heard in Bush's speech were his references to 9/11:
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" Nancy Pelosi
"I said this was an elective war ... Saddam wasn't a part of 9/11, Saddam didn't have WMD to threaten America, but now that we're there, we have to succeed" Wesley Clark
"The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq" Harry Reid
"We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks...The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years, cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it." NY Times (also quoted by Al Jazeera)
"The president tried to link the Iraq campaign to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, even though there is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in them. Nor was Iraq a terrorist haven before the U.S. invasion, though it has become one since." USA Today (also quoted by al Jazeera)
"President Bush's pep talk to the nation Tuesday night was a major disappointment. He again rewrote history by lumping together the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the need for war in Iraq, when, in fact, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda." LA Times
My analysis? It wouldn't have mattered what Bush said. Since I was up at 4:00 AM for some reason I watched a Democrat strategist - I don't recall her name - on Fox this morning let the cat out of the bag. She said something to the effect of "Bush didn't say he was wrong..." That's the whole thing right there. Bush didn't say he was wrong. USA Today backs me up on that:
"There was no acknowledgement of the misjudgments that many Americans now see plainly, but Bush seems unable or unwilling to recognize."
That's all they want, they just want Bush to say he was wrong - is that so hard? Just say you're wrong Mr. Bush and we can move on...to impeachment proceedings.
Am I wrong?
Steve |
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/29/05 1:23 pm:
Hello Its:
I thought that I should be erudite and elucidate, but instead all I did was hallucinate.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/30/05 8:02 am:
excon ,and Ceebee
I have no answer as to why Bush is not more upfront. I consider it a major weakness of him. I support the policy through my own homework and the way I see the world . In my view Tony Blair did more to convince me about the policy then anything Bush ever said. I have spend hours sourcing corroboration to the things I post. I think it fair to say that he should with much greater frequency address the American people . During WWII both Roosevelt and Churchill did so .If it was good enough for them ,it should be good enough for Bush
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
