Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[Teejay32]

To be honest, pitifully, I'd rather had Saddam over some sort of Theocracy. At least he kept these religious zealots off the back of Iraqi women.

a new Democratic talking point?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

a new Democratic talking point?

Absolutely, if the new Republican talking point is "We sacrificed our brave men and women in Iraq for a far right theocracy!! Yeah!!"

 

[sodaseller]

a new Democratic talking point?

1980s GOP Talking point, at least to the first point, and to the extent that we overlooked Halabja

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

1980s GOP Talking point, at least to the first point, and to the extent that we overlooked Halabja

You forgot this circa 1980's beauty:

 

[ThAnswr]

Absolutely, if the new Republican talking point is "We sacrificed our brave men and women in Iraq for a far right theocracy!! Yeah!!"

Honestly, L.O.G., did you, in your wildest imagination ever think this discussion would take such a wild hop?

That's why I love this place. You never know what's going to come out of left field, or in this case, right field.

 

[Teejay32]

Absolutely, if the new Republican talking point is "We sacrificed our brave men and women in Iraq for a far right theocracy!! Yeah!!"

why do you persist in calling it a theocracy. Especially vis-a-vis Iran in the 80's.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

why do you persist in calling it a theocracy.

Ask your pal, Charade. He's the one who said it might be an acceptable outcome because it their country. Unfortunately, it's our sacrifice!!

Especially vis-a-vis Iran in the 80's.

Not Iran...Iraq. That was the Reagan Administration's position on Iraq in the 80's...when we supported Saddam.

Do you guys read each others conservative rantings?!?! I don't want to have to explain what you're saying to each other anymore. I'm sure if Charade was here and not off reading his Rush Limbaugh "How to debate a liberal" manual, he could explain it better. I don't get it?!?!

 

[sodaseller]

Plus, let's not be silly. The "spread of freedom" justification or the like was a post fact justification - that was not a casus belli. It's a rhetorical weapon for domestic political purposess only

 

[Teejay32]

Never mind.

 

[Teejay32]

Plus, let's not be silly. The "spread of freedom" justification or the like was a post fact justification - that was not a casus belli. It's a rhetorical weapon for domestic political purposess only

Really? Operation Iraqi Freedom?

 

[ThAnswr]

Plus, let's not be silly. The "spread of freedom" justification or the like was a post fact justification - that was not a casus belli. It's a rhetorical weapon for domestic political purposess only

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

It's a sad day (or a schedenfruede day depending on your pov) on Planet Bush when even the righties can't come to an agreement of what "bringing democracy to Iraq" really means.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

It's a sad day (or a schedenfruede day depending on your pov) on Planet Bush when even the righties can't come to an agreement of what "bringing democracy to Iraq" really means.

You're killing me!!

 

[Charade]

I'm sure if Charade was here and not off reading his Rush Limbaugh "How to debate a liberal" manual, he could explain it better.

Assume much? I've never read anything by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Colter, etc.

But I've got a copy of Al Franken's book on the back of my toilet. Just in case.

 

[ThAnswr]

You're killing me!!

I'm damn near lethal today.

I was "killing" someone earlier asking for a simple yes or no answer.

 

[Charade]

Plus, let's not be silly. The "spread of freedom" justification or the like was a post fact justification - that was not a casus belli. It's a rhetorical weapon for domestic political purposes only

Umm.. no, it wasn't "post" anything.

So the war was for what?

WMDs? Nope.

Liberation? Nope.

Oil? Nope.

Revenge for the attempted assassination of Pappy Bush? Perhaps.

I guess you're right, it was for naught.

 

[sodaseller]

Really? Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Really. Operation Iraqi Freedom is like the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004" - the name is for political purposes only and is unrelated to the actual content. Accidents vs substance,as Aquinas would say. The proof is in the pre-War statements, as Kevin Drum has noted at Link

BUSH'S WAR....I decided a couple of days ago that it would just be masochistic to complain about Glenn's latest attempt to pretend that democracy promotion was the real reason for the Iraq war. However, Julian Sanchez is a stronger man than I am and says what needs to be said. He speaks for me in this.
But I will add one more thing: except in passing, George Bush didn't mention democracy promotion as a rationale for the war until his AIE speech of February 26, a mere three weeks before the bombing started. The fact that he went months with barely a mention of freedom and democracy in the Middle East — and then made such a lame speech when he did finally mention it — was one of the main reasons that I turned against the war. I originally supported the war as a way to "promote the values of tolerance, human rights, and democratic self-government" in the Middle East, but then switched sides when I finally concluded that my reasons for supporting the war were not George Bush's ("It's simply become wishful thinking to believe that Bush is really committed to any kind of serious effort to promote democracy in Iraq"). In other words, I have a pretty good memory about this stuff since it had a considerable effect on my own thinking.
Still not convinced? Here is Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, delivered seven weeks before the war started. Read through it. There are 1,200 words about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the danger they pose. There are exactly zero words about bringing democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East. In fact, aside from a passing reference to Palestine, the word "democracy" is used only once in the entire speech: in reference to Iran, in a passage that specifically states that "different threats require different strategies." The United States supports Iranian aspirations, Bush said, but that's all. It's not a reason to go to war.
I can't look into George Bush's heart, but I can listen to his words and watch his deeds. And based on that, democracy promotion was not on his agenda before the war, during the war, or after the war until the Ayatollah Sistani forced his hand. Let's not demean history by pretending otherwise

 

[TheBeast]

How I long for the Clinton days when the president stayed in Washington (spending time with interns in the White House)

 

[ThAnswr]

Umm.. no, it wasn't "post" anything.

So the war was for what?

WMDs? Nope.

Liberation? Nope.

Oil? Nope.

Revenge for the attempted assassination of Pappy Bush? Perhaps.

I guess you're right, it was for naught.

You tell us what the war was for. There were no WMD's, the oil isn't flowing, and it sure as hell wasn't for liberation since the righties are now arguing a Shiite theocracy would be just dandy if that's what the Iraqi's want.

Today, I've probably racked up 5 years in Purgatory.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Oart of the reason that the conservatives and Bush are so upset about Cindy Sheehan is that her views on the stupid war in Iraq now represent the majority view. Most of the American public have realized that Bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq and justified the war using fixed facts and intelligence. Sheehan Speaks For A Majority

Matt Drudge and the conservative blogosphere are trying to discredit Sheehan by pointing to interviews from last year in which Sheehan sounded less critical of Bush and the war. Far from "smearing" Sheehan, these reports may well reinforce the role she has unwittingly assumed as spokesperson for ordinary Americans. Because, like Sheehan, ordinary Americans increasingly doubt Bush's intentions in Iraq. The latest Gallup poll finds that the percentage of Americans who believe that sending troops to Iraq was a "mistake" is at an all-time high of 54 percent. And the percentage who believe our nation is "less safe" from terrorism as a result of the war is also at record levels—57 percent. What's important is that many of these people supported the invasion originally. But—perhaps like Cindy Sheehan—they have changed their minds about the war in Iraq ....

Thanks to favorable media coverage and Democratic support, the original White House justification for war was accepted by most Americans. Once Hussein was toppled, they even accepted the idealism expressed in the new rationales for staying in Iraq that involved spreading democracy, etc. But, one by one, Bush's flimsy excuses for war have collapsed under the weight of reality. As casualties mount, and as new evidence surfaces suggesting the White House lied to Americans about the threat Iraq posed, the consensus that Iraq is a just war is eroding.

And those of us who believe a serious fraud was perpetrated on this country could ask for no better interrogator than Cindy Sheehan, whose own understanding of the reasons for war has evolved in light of what she's learned about the war. Recently, she answered eloquently a question about the right-wing media's obsession with her past statements:

I think it's really ironic that they're so willing to assiduously scrutinize the mother of a war hero, a grieving mother, a mother filled with shock and grief, but they won't even scrutinize a president when he says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, when everybody else is saying, "No, he doesn't." If the mainstream media and the right-wing media hadn't been such propaganda tools for Washington, D.C., my son might still be alive.​

Sheehan's detractors seek to depict her as a "patsy" being manipulated by anti-war liberals. By accusing her of somehow impeaching herself a year ago with kind comments about the president, they fuel the publicity surrounding her protest. And in doing so, they may instead be drawing much-deserved attention to the president's own contradictions on Iraq.

First, Cindy Sheehan is entitled to her views. Since her first "meeting" with George (as she calls him), we have established that Bush lied about WMDs and that the facts and the intelligence was fixed to justified this war. Cindy Sheehan has every right to be mad at Bush.

BTW, the excuses for Bush not encouraging his daughters to volunteer for this nobel war are so lame that they are funny. Again, the Bush twins are just like Bush, cowards and chickenhawks. Bush hid from the Vietnam war using his family's connections and Bush's daughters are too busy to fight in their daddy's nobel war.

 

[Teejay32]

sodaseller, I decided a couple of weeks ago that it would be masochistic to expect anyone from the left to read a whole war speech by Bush from 2002-2003, and not rely on third-party interpretations of other people's interpretations like you just did. But anyway, I didn't support this war for the purpose of bringing democracy to the middle east either; I think it's a dumb rationale and nobody needed it to begin with. The "freedom" is re: Saddam, sanctions, and thugocracy, and democracy is the likely outcome.