Hat tip to BlackFive for this:
How to thank soldiers, by George W. Bush
While Bush-haters perceive President Bush as evil incarnate who sent “kids” off to be maimed and killed in an imperialistic war for oil against a country that was never a threat, and to make his rich friends richer, I just have a hard time believing all of that nonsense. As far as I can tell, the former president is anything but sincere in his love, appreciation, and care for those who serve in our military and for their family members.
I’m cynical of a number of politicians; and suspicious of their motives and true feelings beneath the veneer; but with President Bush, how can people doubt his deep appreciation, respect, and admiration for those in uniform?
Disagree with his judgment and policy decisions; but not his heart. Not his character. I don’t believe he took the decision to send our military onto foreign soil, lightly.
He has been a steadfast class act in and out of office. I believe that the presidency has also transformed him into a better man than he otherwise would have been. That the executive office brought out the best in him, because that’s what it demands. Perhaps that is true for Bill Clinton as well. I know partisan Clinton-haters will take umbrage with that; but whatever his personal character failings, he involves himself in a good deal of charity work and causes during his presidential retirement.
A few previous posts:
All the President’s Warriors
President Bush Rides With Wounded Warriors
Why President Bush was Late…
President George W. Bush: Hail to a caring Commander in Chief, and his equally compassionate First Lady
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
No doubt in my mind President Bush is a good man, strongly principled and good in character, and I think history will reflect that. The current occupier of the office? Not so much…
Somehow little Barry doesn’t look too happy does he? Bummer dude, and tough.
Terrific reminders of how a GWBush treats our soldiers and veterans.
I particularly love this video which shows George and Laura Bush greeting returning soldiers at Fort Worth Airport back in 2010.
You have to look closely or you miss the fact that President Bush is handing each soldier a coin as he shakes hands with them.
He’s not making a showy display of this.
The coin is called a challenge coin.
If you have one from the highest officer when the challenge is brought you don’t buy the drinks.
Bush is making sure these soldiers never have to buy drinks in a challenge situation …. again.
Obama handed out his challenge coins when he visited the memorials of soldiers killed at Fort Hood.
Too little, too late.
He could have, and should have made sure they were awarded Purple Hearts.
the first time I heard PRESIDENT BUSH AND ADMIRE HIM,
was before the last count,
his staff where getting exited and where sure of his win,
he turn to them and said let’s be humble and wait till they announce it,
I was impress of his humility which is a mark of GREATNESS,
AND AS HE CONTINUE, WE SAW HIS CLASS ON AND ON,
WITH HIS LOVE OF AMERICA WHICH NEVER FAULTED
WHEN THE HARD DECISIONS CAME TO HIM,
History will revere President Bush and revile Obama just as vehemently as Benedict Arnold.
The undisputed abject dishonesty, snake oil salesmanship, gross incompetence, and profiteering of the Iraq invasion will forever haunt the Bush legacy, as it should.
@Ronald J. Ward: Communists all over the unfree world will sing the praises of Obama’s legacy
@Ronald J. Ward: Go ahead and lay those examples out for us sport… and then you can explain how well your man has performed. This ought to be good…
Bush was an outstanding CiC. Of the six I served under he was probably the best. Unlike his detractors who equated us with the biggest mass murders in history and flat out lied about OIF in order to bash him, he supported the troops and the mission. Most of those who despise him never served under him and suffer from BDS and aren’t to be taken seriously.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
The current occupier of the office? Not so much…
@UpChuck.Liberals:
Somehow little Barry doesn’t look too happy does he? Bummer dude, and tough.
@Nan G:
Obama handed out his challenge coins when he visited the memorials of soldiers killed at Fort Hood.
Too little, too late.
@Tired American:
History will revere President Bush and revile Obama just as vehemently as Benedict Arnold.
Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s turn another post that has nothing to do with Obama into a post about Obama. Because, we’re not obsessed or anything.
Ronald J Ward
you should be revising your comment,
GEORGE BUSH HAD THE class to be a good PRESIDENT,
AND HE HAD THE RESOLVED TO GET AT THOSE MUSLIM FOR HAVING KILLED THOUSANDS
OF AMERICANS, LEAVING THE MESSAGE WHICH IS LOST WITH THIS PRESIDENT,
THAT YOU DON’T ATTACK AMERICA AND GET AWAY WITH IT, NEVER.
HE PRESIDENT BUSH CARED FOR THE PEOPLE,
THAT CARING IS GONE NOW, YOU’R ON YOUR OWN AMERICA.
TA, considering you responded to me, I’m not precisely what you’re trying to say. Does your response mean something like “uh, well, Obama sucks too so take that!”? Perhaps you can elaborate on the connection?
While I’m plenty disappointed in Obama (likely for different reasons than you), the overwhelming evidence of dishonesty of the Iraq war is well documented. Your claim that “Communists all over the unfree world will sing the praises of Obama’s legacy” not only evades that argument but it’s simply that same old howl-at-the-moon unfounded chatter that continues to distort constructive arguments.
THIS HANNITY GUESS, IS making a film on the BORDER AND WHO COME IN AMERICA, HE IS TELLING THAT MONSTRUOUS STORY, AND HE IS VERY GOOD AT IT
HIS NAME IS DENIS MICHAEL LYNCH,
HE IS TALKING OF THE FALL OF AMERICA,
AND OBAMA IS LAUGHING AT THE AMERICANS.
THE NEW IMMIGRATION BILL IS A ANATHEMA FOR AMERICA CITIZENS,
BE SURE TO GET YOUR GUN IN HAND, THE MOB IS COMING TO GET YOU OUT AND TAKE YOUR PLACE,
THE PRESIDENT BUSH WOULD HAVE NEVER ALLOWED IT.
theycometoamerica.com
check it up,he is telling the damn TRUTH
@another vet: Where should I start? How about strongly promoting the concept that Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks. Or maybe that Iraq and al-Qa’ida were working together. Or maybe that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a “reconstituted” nuclear weapons program or that Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons. Let’s look at how Iraq was suppose to be able to deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. Remember “dodgy dossier” or how easy and inexpensive the war was going to be?
@Scott in Oklahoma: The above comment should have been in response to Scott in Oklahoma instead of another vet.
And here’s another oldie but goody- “we must fight them there so we don’t have to fight them in our streets”. Like a country with no army, navy , or air force are going to massively board transatlantic flights to fight us here unless we continue to provide them with fresh troops to satisfy their blood lust.
When will the rhetoric of “Blame Bush” ever end? In fact, it has become so comical that it is still being chanted that every time something goes wrong at my house I’ll amuse the family by saying “Bush did it.”
1. Provide a direct quote stating that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 or that they were working with AQ. That myth has debunked here before, more than once if I’m not mistaken.
2. Provide evidence that debunked that he was not trying to reconstitute his nuke program. I happen to know one person who was stationed near the Iranian border and now has terminal cancer because he was exposed to some of Saddam’s buried nuclear material. He would adamantly disagree with you as would the other members of his unit who stayed in one of his munitions dumps and returned from there with symptoms related to exposure to radiation.
3. We were told BEFORE we went over there that it would be at least a six year operation unlike Bosnia where we were told by Clinton that we would be out in one year.
4. Provide proof to your insinuation that Bush made money off the war.
Name one war where intelligence has been 100% accurate. Did you read any of the pre-war intel reports? I did. I also know analysts who worked the intel coming from there and they still believe Saddam had WMD as do I. After having served two tours over there, including the first, in no way, shape, or form do I feel misled or lied to. That goes ditto for probably 99% of those whom I served with.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
I recall GWB using a State Of The Union Address to invoke Saddam’s “rape room” as a justification to invade. At the same time, the Janjaweed in Durfar were out pillaging villages, raping at will, and pulling babies from screaming mothers arms and tossing them in bon fires. Where was his concerned here? I’m sorry if I don’t share your admiration of GWB.
@Tired American:
I doubt that we’ll see it in our lifetimes, be it rhetorically or simply stated as fact.
I’d be perfectly content to let President Bush get on with his life as a former president and let the historians argue over his presidential virtues or failings. However he was as a president, he’s been an exemplary former president, and from what I can tell, he’s a far happier person being out of the Oval Office. I rather doubt he cares to be compared one way or the other with the guy who’s carrying that burden at present.
I hope everyone had a good 4th. Celebrations in this area are going full tilt at the moment. Booms are echoing all around the lake area and air is full of the smell of black powder.
@Greg:
Most of them probably feel that way upon leaving. It’s a HUGE responsibility lifted off of their shoulders. And there are always the critics. Can’t please everyone.
YOU WANTED AN ALIEN, YOU GOT IT,
HOW DOES IT FEEL NOW?
NO HEART, NO GUTS, NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE AMERICAN WAY, A GREEN LITTLE ROBOT,
WITH A PRINTED SMILE AND A TELEPROMPTER,
FEEDING ON DEAD EAGLES FALLING FROM WIND TOWERS,
READY TO ALLOW THE SCUM OF THE EARTH AS IMMIGRANTS
TO TAKE THE JOBS OF STRUGGLING AMERICANS,
SO TO CHANGE AMERICA FOREVER,
@Tired American: The left, especially the FDR wing of the Democrats, bashed Truman for drawing the line in the sand with Stalin and Communism. It was something none of his predecessors did. His approval rating was the same or less than Bush’s when he left office. Think of how different the Cold War would have turned out had he not done that. Now he is regarded in a more favorable light. I believe it will be the same for Bush. He was the first to have confronted the global terrorist threat in a forceful way, something none of his predecessors did. History will show it was the right decision and had he not made it, the terrorist threat would have gotten worse. Both of them also experienced two recessions on their watch for which they were blamed and had an unpopular war, but it was what they did to stem the tide against a global threat that overshadowed that.
@Ronald J. Ward:
In support of Another Vet’s challenge to you, I preemptively offer you this to read first, if you haven’t come across it already. It’s a blogpost I did because I believe people themselves were confused; and not entirely deliberate by the administration. They could have done a better job clarifying the arguments and the reasons why Iraq is tied to the GWoT; but at the same time, people just weren’t paying close attention and mostly were misled or grew confused by reading from partisans, talking head analysts, and media misrepresentations who all cite from one another.
Much has been written on this.
No official claims that there were ever any evidence of collaboration in regards to the events of 9/11. But were there contacts? Yes. Did al Qaeda have a footprint in Iraq before OIF? Yes. Was a “secular” Saddam willing to work with religious fanatics carrying out terror attacks? Despite what you might have heard (because I’ve read those claims too), he would and did do business with both religious and secular terrorists.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the administration aggressively leaving no stone unturned in speculating possible Saddam involvement in 9/11. Any responsible administration would have done the same. Highly irresponsible would have been to not look for any connections, given a decade long history of deceit and defiance. If 9/11 happened on Clinton’s watch, his administration would have been suspicious of Iraq as well (the one Muslim State that did not offer any message of condolence to the U.S. after 9/11, until much later).
Hmm…maybe Iraqi officials traveled to Niger to negotiate for cowpeas and onions? Yeah, I’m sure that’s what they wanted to discuss.
Even if the 16 words should not have been included in the SotUS, making mistakes is a long way off from your partisan BDS of “The undisputed abject dishonesty, snake oil salesmanship, gross incompetence, and profiteering of the Iraq invasion will forever haunt the Bush legacy, as it should. ”
Do you know who lied? Joe Wilson. He was even rebuked in a Select Senate Committee Report on Pre-war Intell for his misrepresentation.
When did President Bush ever tell you and the American public that this was going to be “easy and inexpensive”?!
@Ronald J. Ward:
Taking the war to al Qaeda did achieve the job of keeping them off balanced from planning and staging another 9/11 attack. After Afghanistan, in which most of the original al Qaeda leadership had been killed or captured, al Qaeda never fully recovered its footing. After around 2004, more than 3,000 al Qaeda operatives in 102 countries, killed or captured.
It is not by accident and not for lack of intent that there was no successful followup attack after 9/11. And there’s a reason why the current administration has kept in place tools developed under the previous administration in order to continue keeping America safe.
Iraq did become a battlefield that was as much a quagmire for al Qaeda as it was for the U.S. And it revealed to the Muslim world the depths of al Qaeda depravity and delegitimized their movement in the eyes of many Muslims. Zarqawi’s violence against Muslims turned Sunni tribes against al Qaeda.
It is better to fight them over there than on our own soil. Duh. But this is a new kind of warfare. Don’t be ridiculous about “invading armies” and such. That was never the justification being made.
@Ronald J. Ward:
You’re really contorting logic and arguments here.
Part of the case against Saddam did involve citing human rights violations against his own people. That was made as part of the justifications; but if that were all, there would be no cause for removing Saddam; not by Bush or anyone. It bolsters the argument against Saddam’s Iraq but certainly the case for war did not hinge upon it.
Darfur does not have a history of 16 + 1 UNSCR violations including a cease-fire agreement with us; they did not shoot at our planes every day in a no-fly zone; they did not threaten to assassinate a former president; they have not used wmd in the past, nor openly pursue wmd. They are not an open state-sponsor of terrorism as Saddam’s Iraq was.
@Greg: Thank you for a very gracious comment from the other side of the political aisle. I hope you’ve enjoyed your 4th, as well.
@Wordsmith: Excellent factual response. It seems you have had to debunk those myths numerous times before as have others of us. Perhaps we can get Curt to develop a debunking database so we can just refer people there and save everyone the time of having to responding in detail!
@another vet:
Yes, it happens. 🙂 And then we rehash old arguments all over again. Sometimes I run a search through the comments archives to cut-and-paste and link previous statements and research just to try and save time; but then, sometimes that ends up costing me more time than simply responding, even if it’s not as thorough as I’d like to be.
There are a few useful links on the sidebar. I think one of them that’s nice to have is my Bush-Saddam-9/11 post, because to this day I still hear, “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11” as an argument. I think Scott’s posts on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II investigation report is also very useful, as is his post covering the Iraqi Perspectives Project.
But yeah, it’d be nice to have just one comprehensive mythbusting factchecked post on such things as the 16 words/Plame/Joe Wilson/Libby controversy that could be handily linked to. Arguments about Curveball, CIA torture, Mission Accomplished banner, etc.
@Wordsmith: I’ll have to explore those sidebars a little more. Your responses (and threads for that matter) are some of the most thorough here. Even the ones that “aren’t as thorough”. They also have a good, level headed approach.
@Wordsmith:
Good props, Wordsmith. Greg is unfailingly a knowledgeable and classy poster. This is a man who always holds his own, but never descends into the mud that is thrown at him.
Tom
I hope you are talking about the right smart GREG,
THERE ARE TWO OF THEM.
@Wordsmith: I only have a few minutes before a busy day but your rebuttal admits that mistakes were made and deflects the rationale that the Iraq invasion was sold on.
That did make a convenient after-the-fact excuse when WMDs weren’t found I suppose. You seemed reluctant to mention Iraq there.
I thought Joe Wilson accused Obama lied when he said illegal immigrants wouldn’t be insured. Oh well.
I may be back this evening to elaborate on your talking points but seriously, Iraq will historically be known for it’s gross dishonesty, abject incompetence, blatant disregard of facts, and gross profiteering. Spin it all you like, it was a senseless waste of American lives and resources.
Ronald J Ward
don’t blame GEORGE BUSH FOR IT,
HE gave them answer they deserve, for 3 thousand deaths of AMERICANS,
SADDAM WAS A CORRUPT RUTHLESS CRUEL HUMAN BEEN , HE WAS HARBORING THE TRAINING OF ALQAEDA NUMEROUS GROUPS, AND HE ATTACK HIS NEIGHBOR WHICH IS AN ALLY HERE,
A NUKLEOR WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER BUT GEORGE BUSH WAS NOT AGAINST THE PEOPLE,
ONLY THE HEAD OF THE SNAKE AND HIS FOLLOWERS,
BY THE WAY HE ALSO USE THE CHIMICALS TO KILL MANY KURDS, HE HAD IT. IT WAS FOUND AND TRANSFER TO CANADA
@Tired American: Well, it is obvious you know little of leadership, less of ethics and very little concerning unintended consequences. I spent 3 1/2 years in Iraq as an Army soldier. I served under Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Thank God, only a few months under Obama. Unfortunately my son and lady served and are serving under Obama.
Carter sent troops into Iraq with insufficient force. Many died and their bodies were dragged around the city. Clinton was responsible for the Mogadishu where the “Black Hawk Down ” disaster occurred and look at how well we protect those who we send into the arm pits of the World like Benghazi. See any common thread here?
You folks who never served under Bush have no idea who he was or what he did. You only listen to the far left who actually supports the actions of Obama that are far more radical copies of the ones Bush initiated.
@Tom: I think this turned into an Obama issue when you lefties criticized Bush with out placing his actions into perspective. Comparing his actions with Obama places them into perfect perspective that even a low information voter should understand.
@Wordsmith: I admire your patience. I just usually let these lefties now often referred to as low information voters who believe all of their propaganda just ramble on and on and on with their same spin.
Randy
glad you here,
I thought you would be the right one to conclude this debate with
the right word,
thank you.
@Randy: I think you have TA confused with Ronald J. Ward. TA was defending Bush, not bashing him.
In 2012 military veterans split their vote, according to Fox News Exit Polls, evenly between Obama and Romney. However the older vets tended to vote Romney and the younger ones veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan tended to vote for Obama. We lost 5000 dead 30,000 wounded/maimed, 200 that need facial transplants and 500 that need genital reconstruction. The recent vets know best what the cost of the Iraq misadventure was. And that the end result of the war was that we did get rid of Iran’s biggest enemy and that 50% of Iraq’s christian population chose to leave the New Iraq, because they feared for their lives. Iraq is now Iran’s best friend.
Veterans have been moving to the Dems. in 2004 Kerry got 41% of the vet votes (after being heavily swiftboated) In 2008 Obama got 44% running against McCain a naval aviator wounded war vet POW and in 2012 Obama got the same as Romney 49%. The days of the GOP claiming the vet vote are over. It will not be long before the GOP turns against vets, i think it will happen soon and the reason will be that 50%b of all vets deployed in iraq or Afghanistan are now claiming a permanent disability. Recent veets are already the fastest growing demo for food stamps.
John
tragic , all those WOUNDED, AND DEATH, OBAMA CONTINUE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN SINCE HE IS PRESIDENT WITH A NEW ROE, OF PREVENTING THE MILITARY TO KILL AS OPPOSE TO THE ENEMIES WHO CONTINUE TO KILL WITHOUT RESTRAINT WHICH THE AMERICANS WHERE FORCE TO FOLLOW,
RESULTING IN MORE WOUNDED SEVERELY BY EID SPREAD WHERE THEY MARCH, AND MANY DIED,
ALSO EVEN THOSE BEING TRAINED BY THE MILITARY SHOT THE SOLDIER IN THE BACK,
THAT KIND OF OBAMA WAR, WHICH GEORGE BUSH WOULD HAVE NEVER ASK FROM HIS MILITARY,
BECAUSE HE CARED MORE FOR THEM.
@Tom: I think you and Greg do quite well in maintaining your composure when personally attacked. I hope you two and Rich keep entering the lion’s den here to keep my side honest.
@john: This is why you are the worst commenter. What is your point as it relates to this post? Because you’ve posted the same drivel here and here and here. What does this have to do with the topic? Are you a new kind of spambot stuck on a talking point? A number of your comments sound like you aren’t reading the actual contents of the post to be directly addressed, but merely used as a launching platform to get across your own bullet points.
And why did you drop the “Ryan”? At least you’re not as bad as you were back then.
@Randy:
Sometimes…. 😉
@Ronald J. Ward:
There are always mistakes made in every situation. it does not delegitimize the war rationale; nor am I deflecting.
There are good arguments to be made against having gone to war when we did as it relates to Iraq; but most of those arguments aren’t made by those like you (the “Bush lied, people died”-type of meme and “war for oil”). The rationale the administration took was just as sound and was an honest, serious deliberation on the problem of Saddam’s Iraq in a post-9/11 world. Clinton was on the same track, antagonized throughout the 90’s by the hostile regime. So much so that “regime change” became official U.S. policy toward Iraq under Clinton.
What made Saddam a metastasizing threat to global stability was the failure of the UN to enforce its own UNSCRs, starting with the original Cease Fire Agreement, violated by Saddam almost right away. Getting away with defiance and deception for over a decade, Saddam thought Bush was bluffing when he threatened to finally take action (as admitted to his FBI interrogator, George Piro).
I suggest you review the AUMF. There were a number of justifications put forth; and taken as a whole, I still believe that keeping Saddam in power would have been just as much a danger as the risk of removing him. Unfortunately, we can’t measure the costs if he and his murderous sons were still in power; but you critics can cite and conflate your trillion dollar price tag to your heart’s content.
And every good and correct decision can have bad endings; every bad decision can end up achieving good results. Why? Because there are many players involved through the course of history. Someone- or several someones- along the way can drop and fumble the ball (such as my side criticizing the current PotUS for not renegotiating the SoFA with Iraq, as was the original intent, to America and Iraq’s mutual strategic advantage).
Iraq is out of Bush’s hands now. Its future rests with Iraqis, as well as with how we ourselves influence and shape events, globally. Here’s a zen koan for you, ’cause you have me feeling all philosophical, now:
I believe Bush, based upon what we knew and thought we knew at the time, made a sound decision; and a logical conclusion that Saddam posed a wmd-threat. Saddam himself perpetuated the belief by many around the world- not just the Bush Admnistration- that Saddam was hiding wmd. And those “dreadful” neocons like Douglas Feith thought there was too much emphasis placed upon wmd stockpiles, when the case against Saddam could be built around his history of aggression, defiance of 16 + 1 UNSCRs- that his regime was irredeemable. Diplomacy hadn’t started on just Bush’s watch. Diplomacy had been tried for well over a decade. After 9/11, tolerance was no longer acceptable for a rogue regime, steep deep in terror ties and love of wmd acquirement.
What reluctance?! Iraq! Iraq! Iraq! Happy?
You seem to have your argument confused. The argument you should be making is about how the language of the WH changed in defending its war decision after it became clear that stockpiles looked unlikely to be found. The excuse critics cite isn’t what you blockquoted from me, but about how “nation-building” and democracy became the WH talking point. It’s true. And according to that dreadful neocon Douglas Feith, it was a mistake for the WH to “move on” rather than defend itself from the critics, rewriting the pre-war arguments. There was no “Bush lied” just because some of the intell was dated and flawed. Bush acted upon the best information he had available to him, at the time he made his decision.
You know, that passed through my mind, too; but I thought, “naw”, Ronald’s not smartalecky enough to bring that up.
You well know of which Joe Wilson I am referencing. Perhaps you are unaware of his lies?
This thread isn’t going anywhere. 🙂 Come back when you’ve got your merry-go-round in order. I love watching your side spin round and round on the Iraq issue. 🙂
@another vet: might have clicked on the wrong post.
@Ronald J. Ward:
The only mistake Bush made, was listening to the Democrats about WMD.
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Thirteen,
this is thorough, I SAY WOW
THANK YOU.
@Tired American: I suggest that you can vary your refrain by adding: “OMG, it must be global warming!” in addition to Bush must have done it.
@Randy: Indeed. Initially, TA will probably be a little dumbfounded at your “response”.
TA
Randy made an error, his comment was for another vet,
oops I made an error his comment was for Ronald J Ward,
another vet
you mean Tired American,
yes he is on our side Randy
Thirteen, you did well in explaining how “The only mistake Bush made, was listening to the Democrats about WMD”. However, you also make a rather telling admission that the Iraq invasion was indeed a mistake based on the main driver of the invasion- WMDs. While your arguments are commendable, you ignore the overwhelming evidence of the Bush Admin manipulating and exploiting that, actually building on that with fear mongering and rhetorical hype. And while I could easily elaborate, the very fact that you state the invasion was a mistake based on Saddam having WMDs is argumentative enough in itself. Are you saying Bush was “conned” into this by Democrats? Maybe Democrats duped him into this? Or, maybe democrats were equally stupid? Was Bush’s decision “the absolutely right thing to do” as he says? Precisely, which side of the argument are you taking?
To Randy, I have 2 questions.
What precisely did Obama deviate from on military strategy than Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, or G.W. Bush? What exact policies changed that gives credence to your claim? And, why is it that anyone that disagrees with your ideology or even opinion must be a “lefty” or even a “low information voter”. You see, when you inject such specious and delusional arguments in adult conversations, it’s hard take anything you say with any iota of credibility.
@Wordsmith: You are a class act.
@Marine72: There are new specimens of early man being found in Africa, dating from one million to three million year range, and I read that stuff because it is fascinating.
However, the leftist professors couldn’t help theorizing on the disappearance of neanderthal in the 20,000 to 30,000 year range ( a thimble of water thrown into the Missouri River, comparatively speaking) and they are now saying it was a result of Climate Change. I laughed so hard I almost lost my Jalapeño eggs from breakfast when I read that buffoonery.
Right then, I decided to write a novel type story on the disappearance of our closest “modern relative,” and advance my own theories of his disappearance. They might be wrong, but they have more logic within them than Climate Change Theory, and it will be written by a man who has lived on the edge of survival and not an academic who has only theorized from the faculty lounge.
It should be ready in another few days, and it will be a hoot. You are all invited.
Climate Change my arse.
Skookum
hi,
I can’t wait to read it,
bye
Skookum
I just ran into a great idea for a community to be healthy,
it come from listening and watching a television program about BANFF,
THEY SAID , if you want to move there,, you cannot unless you work there or you have a business
there, employing the locals citizens, or you lived there and retired,
I love it, it protect the citizens from foreign invasion which is at it’s peak now,
taking away the jobs of the people
by anyway they can use,
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD FOLLOW THAT IDEA, and restricting who come and live in their town,
it would be a successful place where also you can help your poor only the one who has been living in
for their life, instead of having to be submerge by the cost of welfare
to foreigners who stay for the taking only.