Posted on 12/19/2005 4:29:28 AM PST by LouAvul
WASHINGTON - Democrats and Republicans are applauding President Bush for acknowledging mistakes in Iraq and taking responsibility, but critics say he still has not given Americans a realistic plan that will lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
"I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss — and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly," Bush declared in a televised speech to the nation Sunday, his first from the Oval Office since announcing the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
He held out the promise that when the Iraqi military gains strength and self-government moves forward, "it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see."
The language was not specific enough for Bush's critics.
"While I appreciate the president's increased candor, too much of the substance remains the same and the American people have still not heard what benchmarks we must meet along the way to know that progress is being made" and when the troops "can begin to come home," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
His House counterpart, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said: "Tonight the president acknowledged more of the mistakes he has made in Iraq, but he still does not get it. Iraq did not present an imminent threat to the security of the United States before he began his war of choice."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Stupid dame. What is it about 9/11 she forgets? It's a war against terrorism. Get it? Freaking demonRat morons.
"...but critics say he still has not given Americans a realistic plan that will lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces. "
It's official. You just can't please these folks.
Well I don't know about you, but I just finished reading the book by Stephen Hayes : The Connection. If he's right, we have documents taken from IRAQ that show Bin Laden was an intelligence asset. I'm convinced that Saddam funded major aspects of Al-Qaeda.
No, you can'y. He just gave the moonbats more rope with which to hang themselves. And they'll oblige. They are one-note Johnnies.
Roger that. He certainly had the dough to do it. Oil for food, I'm convinced, was financing world-wide terror groups. These people mean to enslave the world under Islamic fascism.
I agree with your post, and bolstered by the Stephen Hayes reference in post #3, I think (hope, pray) that the president is letting out a little more rope to his ignorant Democrat critics to hang themselves.
You forgot to add the UN as well.
Waiting for Ted Kennedy to outline the exit plan he had for Mary Jo Kopechne!
Nancy Pelosi, the Defeatist minority caucus leader, is an enemy of the Republic.
I thought Bush's speech was great, especially the part to the defeatists - like dealing with children where you have to explain everything.
I have a question for this thread: Does anyone still think there were WMDs in Iraq? I thought that up until last night - figured they were sent to Syria or other countries on the eve of war. Bush on numerous occasions recently has hammered away that they weren't there. Why would he be taking such a strong position on it if there were any evidence Syria or some other state had them? Are we finally seeing the whole WMD issue being laid to rest? Interested to read thoughts on this.
The contrast between the responsible adults in the Administration and the whining children of the Democrat leadership could not be more stark. If the Donks think they are picking up seats in the Fall, they're dreaming!
Let's hope they don't wake up anytime soon...
They certainly own much of the blame, via the laughably named "oil for food" program. The only question on the UN is were they 1) simply using Saddam as a middleman, 2) turning a blind eye toward Saddam's ambitions, or 3) complete clueless idiots.
While it's hard to discount #3, I'd have to go with a gut feeling of #2.
The question is not whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq
The question is whether or not Iraq was in compliance with the terms of the Gulf War cease fire and numerous UNSC resolutions, including UNSC 1441. Restating the question to make it about the presence of stockpiles of WMDs is a purposeful attempt to distort the reasons we went to war in a way that favors the Democrats.
And on the question of compliance, there is no debate. Iraq was not in compliance and subsequent discoveries have demonstrated that fact, over and over again.
October 11, 2002
The following resolution was passed 296-133 by the House of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate on October 10 and 11, 2002:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to 'work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to 'work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that 'the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Agree. I thought it was a self-deprecating and low-key speech (considering the success of the election). Perhaps the war is going well and he fears the DEMS will stop attacking and making mistakes, and he would also like to limit their defeatist statements regarding the war. So he is minimumizing the success so far, taking responsibility for everything, and inviting them to attack him. The DEMS now have a problem: If they attack the "person responsible", and things turn out well, they will look like even bigger fools.
Here's the bottom line: When the Patriot Act expires in January, the War on Terror is effectively over. We're right back to the pre-911 mentality. The war in Iraq is winding down, and we'll be coming home shortly. The media and the liberals have won on the argument that we can't do demeaning things to terrorists. They've won on the idea that the terrorists should be released from prison and sent home. They've won on the argument that we can't intercept phone calls from al Qaeda operatives to the US. They've won on the argument that we should not be able to gather intelligence on terrorists in the US. They've won on the argument that terrorists are entitled to a fair trial.
There really is nothing left of the war on terror. Whether we won or lost is not clear to me. It depends on whether we're attacked again. The only thing that can be said for certain is that if we are attacked again, Bush will be able to say "I told you so" because he has steadfastly opposed all efforts to wind down the war on terror.
Interestingly enough, it is the NY based media, principally the NYT, and the NY Senators and Congressmen who've led the charge in shutting down the war on terror. If NY is attacked again, then they've got no one to blame but themselves.
Did the president EVER use the term "imminent" to describe the threat from Iraq? I thought he specifically said that while it wasn't an "imminent" threat, it was something we needed to take care of before it became so. Does anyone know where this "imminent" thing came from?
I believe the first person to use the word "imminent" with regards to Iraq WMD was Sen. Jay Rockefeller. May be wrong about that but that's my recollection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.