YES!

Friday, November 11, 2005
Bush slams back at the Democrats and their revisionist history of the war!

It's about damn time!!

But, he gave the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves with their carping and false accusations so maybe the timing is just right!

Here's Gateway Pundit.

Here's Glenn's main posting..follow his links and enjoy!

Me, I'm going to sit back with a bag of popcorn and watch the show!

Update (Seneca, 14:15 MDT): Also see Jeff Goldstein's posts on the topic:


... Glenn touches on an important distinction that we should now be willing to embrace: namely, that though the anti-war position is not inherently unpatriotic, those in the anti-war movement who use lies and misinformation to harm the country are—and political opportunism that relies on revisionist history and the leveling of false charges in order to regain power is indicative of mindset that profoundly cynical and profoundly anti-democratic.



Update (Syl, 16:24 EST): And let's not forget those who opposed the war and didn't care about the WMD threat at all, yet use the 'No WMD!' meme as an excuse to oppose the war which they already opposed. My head hurts. ::grabbing another handful of popcorn:: Real butter! Yum!

Yet Another Update (Seneca, 17:35 MDT): More from Glenn:

... outrage over questioning of patriotism is kind of one-sided. You can say that Bush and Cheney started the war with a bunch of lies to enrich their buddies at Halliburton, and that their supporters are all a bunch of chickenhawks on the White House payroll. But that's different because -- because Bush is anti-evolution, and doesn't support gay marriage! Or something.

43 comments:

Knucklehead said...

Now we may get to witness how the MSM goes about thwarting the power of the bully pulpit. Expect there to be little coverage of this outside of the blogs. The MSM will continue to repeat the lies.

terrye said...

I saw something on Fox, but then again Fox ain't the evening news.

I think it is about time myself and I hope Bush keeps it up loud enough and long enough that people have to hear.

markg8 said...

Hey all he has to do is provide the evidence backing his prewar claims. He's gotta be pretty desperate to try to divert attention by inviting everybody to criticize his decision to go to war and conduct of the war though.

Syl said...

Knuck and Terrye

Dunna worry. The gauntlet has been thrown down!

and Rove is back.

We're winning in Iraq and that makes the Dems sound doubly stupid.

Let them keep digging that hole!

Syl said...

Oh, and Seneca, thanks for the additon.

I'd like to add to the anti-patriotic charge that those who opposed the war coudn't care less whether WMDs were found or not, yet they use them as an excuse to..oppose the war! LOL

Peter UK said...

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," Bush said.

Rick Ballard said...

"so maybe the timing is just right!"

It's still a year to the elections. I really don't expect a strong flow of this until March. I doubt that he plans to vacation in Crawford this year.

Knuck, the Demsm just don't have the heft anymore. Sure, they'll continue the lies. That's what liars do. It just doesn't matter as much anymore.

The useful idiots have a tough and futile struggle in front of them. It will be entertaining to watch them drown in bile next November.

Stupidity is always its own and only reward.

terrye said...

mark:

Why should he do that when the Democrats who made the same claims already backed up the claims themselves long ago?

Are you under the impression that Clinton had no evidence or that he lied?

This is just Democrats trying to demoralize the troops and make politcal hey off of the suffering of others.

it is unpatriotic and irresponsible for the Democrats to make these claims.

They had years when they were in power to dismiss these claims and they did not. Now they are just trying to use the war for political gain.

BTW, have you ever read the resolution giving Bush authority to go to Iraq? There is a lot more to it than wmd. And if they found the weapons tomorrow these people would still be doing the same thing.

The urge to relive the happy days of Viet Nam and defeat and boat people and reeducation camps and national shame are just too much for them to resist.

Knucklehead said...

Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, Ordered Reported on July 7, 2004, Select Committe on Intelligence, United States Senate.

Full text: Conclusions of Senate's Iraq
Report on the prewar intelligence assessments
.

Comprehensive Report
of the Special Advisor to the DCI
on Iraq’s WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
, September 30, 2004.

Note for the Comprehensive Report With Addendums.

CORRECTION TO THE DCI SPECIAL ADVISOR'S REPORT ON IRAQI WMD Regarding Niro Atomizer Inc.

Peter UK said...

Hardly a good election slogan

"Vote for us the Republicans ran rings around us"

or better still

"We we for it before there were votes in being against it"

Fools or knaves.

How embarrassing"

Syl said...

Knuck

Thanks for the links all together!

Peter

LOL!

How about:

"The Republicans showed how stupid we are, so let's vote them out of power!"

"We knew Bush lied but we voted for war anyway!"

"Bush duped us! Vote for us because we're smarter than him!"

markg8 said...

Yes and the Republican campaign slogan is going to be, "After Iraq, Social Security, Katrina, and Terry Schaivo you suckers still trust us don't you?"

Declare any dissent to the mess in Iraq unpatriotic? THAT'S your big pushback? LOL.

Peter UK said...

Syl,

"We don't know what it is,but if you're for it we're against it"

BTW Is pleading the Fifth a good Democratic policy?.

Knucklehead said...

Syl,

You're welcome - very much so. More on the way (as time allows the searching and compiling).

Peter UK said...

Worth the legth for the quotes
But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 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.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

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.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

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.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

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 the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 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.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

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.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

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.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 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.

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: 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.2

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that

without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was

hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.

So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that

[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3

Read the entirety of Mr. Podhoretz superb essay.
Via Austin Bay

mrp said...

Peter UK -

BTW Is pleading the Fifth a good Democratic policy?.

Perhaps for some, but Ted Kennedy usually runs a tab.

topsecretk9 said...

Rove strikes again...frustrating for us, but patience is a virtue. The one message party chose quagmire! And told us so ALOT!

Mid-terms campaign ads have already been written...

"I supported the war, before I didn't"

Peter UK said...

Looks like they might be "Roving" reporters via Captains Quarters

vnjagvet said...

A good speech well delivered. The President has been saying essentially the same thing since his inauguration speech.

No one in the Democratic Party or the MSM wants to see or hear his praise of the therapeutic effects of free, representative government in the middle east and other places of tension, and his determination that it be given a fair opportunity to develop in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other troubled places where it has been suppressed by force of arms.

Although repetition is necessary, the bully pulpit cannot be overused or it becomes ineffective.

But this was a great speech and a great day to give it.

topsecretk9 said...

Pete in UK
---that is what I thought too! You know why? the dems aren't making a big stink about being "left out" of the intel brief(ings). And instead of their new outrage of leaking (plame) they are more concerned in focusing on PRE-war intel.

They don't miss opportunities to express outrage, the absence speaks volumes.

markg8 said...

topsecretk9

Do you really think Repubs are going to invite Dems to a meeting where Cheney is explaining how the CIA is breaking the law under his orders by torturing people?

flenser said...

markg8

What law do you imagine is being broken? What evidence do you have that anyone is being tortured?

Please show your work.

Mapes said...

Do you really think Repubs are going to invite Dems to a meeting where Cheney is explaining how the CIA is breaking the law under his orders by torturing people

MarkyMark

Are you really sure that members of the Senate foreign Intelligence committee to name a few are not PRIVY to the same information, let alone a Democratic briefing as you described above did not take place?

If you are, then i would love for you to point to the democrats outrage to this sneaky and unfair briefing.

Get ready for the disappointment of your life.

terrye said...

I don't think anyone is being tortured in American custody. I do think that the administration knows that given the choice between trusting an American interrogator and AlQaida operatives with a penchant for murder the average Democrat at this point will follow the path of Durbin and trust the terrorist.

Someday a Democrat just might make it to the White House and if he/she/it does... the same debate concerning who controls these issues, the executive or legislative branch, will still exist.

My guess is the Democrats will feel differently about it then.

I think McCain is just trying to pander here and his efforts will backfire like McCain/Feingold did.

Besides are we honestly expected to believe that when Clinton allowed the Jordanians to interrogate people who were thought to be part of the millenium plot that issues like this were not on the table then?

Peter UK said...

"Do you really think Repubs are going to invite Dems to a meeting "

"Vote Democrat,we don't know anything either"

markg8 said...

flenser: What law do I imagine is being broken? More than one. The War Crimes Act. The Geneva Conventions to which we are signatories. Sections 2340-2340A of the US Code, Title 18.

What evidence do I have? The military's own reports, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's inquiry found "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses." The report issued by a panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found "widespread" abuses. And the International Red Cross repeatedly protested the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Larry Wilkerson's statement that the trail runs right from Cheney's office through Rumsfeld and down the line.

We didn't win the Cold War by being more repressive than the communists. We won't win the war against radical Islamists by circumventing our own laws. The rule of law IS what separates us from the terrorists and thugs we seek to defeat.

markg8 said...

Look Petey maybe you don't understand how badly the Republicans who run Congress have subverted our legislative process.

They routinely rewrite bills in private after they've been through committee before they reach the floor. They jam all kinds of earmarks, special favors (pork) into them, then sometimes intentionally hold votes late in the evening and only notify their supporters they're even being held. If it's contentious legislation, like the Medicare drug reform bill, they'll lie about it's particulars and hold the vote open til they strongarm the votes they need to get it passed.

There is a culture of corruption in the Republican party these days that starts at the top. It's only taken them 10 years to far exceed anything the Democrats even contemplated during their 40 years of Congressional domination. It's ugly
and it's gotta stop.

Peter UK said...

Mooqi
I read the post,I check the subject,DEMSM and leftiod lies about the war purely for domestic political gain,I read you latest off topic post,straightforward party political spiel,I think, "No principles just do anything to get back into power".

BTW Your prose style varies enormously,are you getting help from the hive,or are you just cutting and pasting?

flenser said...

markg8

1) The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.

2) Taguba's inquiry was into abuses in Iraq. It has no bearing on the previously secret dentention centers under discussion here.

3) Where crimes have been determined to have been committed, they have been discovered and prosecuted by the US miltary, without any help from the press.

4) Larry Wilkerson's comments are worth the paper they are printed on, no more.

5) The US is not answerable to the International Red Cross.


Lastly, I suggest that you attempt to confine your comments to the topic under discussion. These comment sections are not a forum for you to opine on whatever matter takes your fancy.

markg8 said...

You asked here flenser:

"What law do you imagine is being broken? What evidence do you have that anyone is being tortured?

Please show your work."

Petey I write my own stuff. I did lift the names of the laws directly from the article below to save time.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman

markg8 said...

flenser I can respond to your 5 part rebuttal here or elsewhere if you prefer. Take your pick.

flenser said...

markg8

What does the link you provided have to do with the secret detention centers in Europe?

markg8 said...

flenser: Dick Cheney evidently revealed the existence of the detention centers to the Senators in that Repubs only meeting in order to gain support for gutting McCain's anti torture bill. He wants the CIA left out of the provisions of the bill.

flenser said...

markg8

Although we don't know all the details of the secret detention centers, what you say is probably more or less accurate.

But that does not explain what the Nation article on AG has to do with any of this.

Abu Gharib was not a secret detention center. It was run by the US Army, not the CIA. It housed many different types of people. The detention centers are reserved for the hard-core terrorists.

Would it be preferable to you if we simply executed the terrorists on the spot? That is the realistic alternative to detaining them.

markg8 said...

No I would rather they be sent to a US prison camp instead of former Soviet gulags. I would also prefer that they be allowed to defend themselves under a writ of Habeas Corpus like the Supreme Court said in 2004. But ya know I'm just one of those liberal weenies who thinks we ought to abide by our own laws. What do I know?

Peter UK said...

"I would also prefer that they be allowed to defend themselves under a writ of Habeas Corpus like the Supreme Court said in 2004. But ya know I'm just one of those liberal weenies who thinks we ought to abide by our own laws."

Interesting you would extend the rights of your laws and Constitution to those who do not recognise them and,who would,destroy those very institutions if they could.
The other fascinating insight is that it is you "liberal weenies" who would be providing lawyers and releasing as many as you could.Intrigueing since it is the "liberal" culture of the West that those who the prisons are meant for hates the most.

markg8 said...

I see no reason to unilaterally destroy our own rights and Constitution because we are opposed by those who do not recognise them and, who would, but can't, destroy those very institutions.

I'm not gonna do their work for them Petey and if you had a lick of sense you wouldn't either. Those rights and freedoms are our ace in the hole when it comes to hearts and minds. And unless you intend to wipe every last perosn of the Islamic faith off the face of the Earth from your chair there in London we need the rule of law and these rights to win.
That's the difference between you and me.

Peter UK said...

The difference between you and me Mook is that, despite all your fake sincerity,you have decided that losing in Iraq is the only way you people can get back in power.To that end you will ham string any means that help your country win.
You will lie, cheat and let Iraq fall into bloody chaos,you will shame your country and your military,why not you have done it before.
You can't keep the naked lust for power oozing out of every post.

Syl said...

mark

May I remind you that you do not have the right to run around and do just anything you please. Every single one of your rights has limits and responsibilities.

Your freedom isn't free. It was bought for you by people who fought a war. It is protected for you by people who die in wars. For as long as we maintain our freedom, we must pay for it.

terrye said...

mark:

Considering the fact that such legal minds as those on the Supreme Court are struggling with these issues and trying to decide what if anything these people are entitled to I really do not think you are qualified to make blanket pronouncements like some freaking God on high.

The truth is these guys might not be entitled to anything other than a military tribunal and a bullet. In fact that is probably more than they deserve.

markg8 said...

I don't why know my previous post was deleted. Maybe whoever did would care to explain.

Despite what "these guys" might be entitled to, the American public is entitled to see them tried and convicted or exonerated fairly within our system.

I'd like to see Osama Bin Laden brought to justice in an American court, prosecuted by Peter Fitzgerald, convicted of his crimes and executed if found guilty.

Broadcast the trial worldwide with translations in every language known to man. It would be a tremendous boon to winning the war on terror. Millions in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere would see a model of justice they could aspire to. I'm sure of our cause and know that justice is on our side. What about the rest of you?

Peter UK said...

"Broadcast the trial worldwide with translations in every language known to man. It would be a tremendous boon to winning the war on terror. Millions in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere would see a model of justice they could aspire to"

Yes,I can see that going down really well in the Arab world The have a model of justice, Sharia Law.

markg8 said...

They don't have any model of justice in SA, Syria or Egypt you fool. They're all dictatorships where freedom of expression, political freedoms etc. are all tightly controlled by the state. Just like Iraq used to be and will probably soon be again. How old are you anwyay? With your range of knowledge and emotional outlook you can't possibly be more than about 12.