No the other thing...you mean...no not that...this....awww hell just click the link.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/index.html


:D

No the other thing...you mean...no not that...this....awww hell just click the link.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/index.html


:D

Darn interwebs. Linkee no workee.

He is The Decider®, and it's hard work.

He is The Decider®, and it's hard work.

If you aren't 4 us...yr agin us....

Bush admitting to no Saddam 9-11 connection, multiple times
Admitting to secret CIA prisons where people are held without due process
A Judge saying the wiretaps are so illegal he should cease immediately

and still a chunk of Cons think he's been completely on the up and up

I'm really starting to think we may be doomed by a conspiracy of dunces

"yeehawwwwwwww, let's all go to the end of the word party - i've done the hard work, let the salvation begin!"
-G.W.Bush

No the other thing...you mean...no not that...this....awww hell just click the link.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/index.html


:D

Nice work TMB, it almost sounded as if your title and subject were written by GWB hisself. :p

As for the recent admission, well, perhaps it's motivated by how bad the "pole" numbers are for his party. He must be experiencing extreme pressure to mea culpa. Soon he'll be asking forgiveness for his mistaken trust of Rummy/Cheney/Rice/Rove...et al. In the end, he's just trying to save his own arse from impeachment. He knows once Conyers gets a majority, real investigations are gonna take place.

It's best to get all these confessions out now so people will forget them in time for the elections.

And read the story. For extra credit, I listened/watched the video, as encouraged by the CNN web people. It says "Watch Bush argue why Iraq is central to the war on terror". Very interesting. There's the President, and I think I'll be able to hear what he said. Sorry! There's a voice over telling me what the President said, even though I am perfectly capable of listening and understanding for myself.

The anonymous voice then lets the President speak, telling us in UBLs words how Iraq is the central battleground for UBLs plans to dominate the world. After the President quotes UBL, the voice comes back and says "This is a page ripped right out of a Karl Rove playbook that helped Republicans win in 2002 and 2004. Playing on Americans' fears of another terrorist attack."

Now that's what I like about CNN - their unbiased reporting. After all, its not possible that the President really believes what he is saying, that there is a clear and present danger (than you, Tom Clancy) that UBL and his followers are trying their darndest to kill thousands of Americans. No, it is obviously a plot hatched by the nefarious Rove to "Play on Americans' fears of another terrorist attack." I'm sure Rove directed UBL to use those words, too. Or better yet, maybe there is no UBL and its all a creation of Rove to get Bush elected!

At the bottom of this page, I'll post that cartoon again. Take a look at all the posts by "The Left" representatives here and tell me honestly if the characterization does not fit. Let me summarize it for you: "The Left" believes that Bush/Rove/Cheney are evil and the real threat. However, UBL is the one who says that his goal is world domination and the mass murder of Americans. But I shouldn't fear an attack, because my real fear should be that some CIA agent is listening in to my cell phone conversations with my kid, or monitoring my emailing habits with Colorado Cyclist.

Then there's Harry Reid telling us how awful things are on the ground in Iraq. I googled "harry reid travels to iraq" and found he has been to Iraq exactly zero times. Another credible source of information and opinion.

Good thing the NY Times told us about these prisons so we can make sure that these innocent Muslim cobblers can get three hots and a cot in Cuba.

I'm really starting to think we may be doomed by a conspiracy of dunces


You're just starting to think we may be doomed by a conspiracy of dunces?

The irony isn't lost on me...

At the bottom of this page, I'll post that cartoon again. Take a look at all the posts by "The Left" representatives here and tell me honestly if the characterization does not fit. Let me summarize it for you: "The Left" believes that Bush/Rove/Cheney are evil and the real threat. However, UBL is the one who says that his goal is world domination and the mass murder of Americans.
Okay, but if UBL is the real threat then why hasn't Bush/Rove/Cheney turned over every stone to find him? Why was the CIA unit searching for UBL disbanded? Why was our military focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq?

I don't think that cartoon is any more fitting than portrayals of Cheney wiping his butt with the BoR. Each is funny to those of a certain political bent and regarded to have a measure of "truthiness," but neither is really fair or accurate.

Regarding today's revelations, when I hear "secret CIA prisons" that immediately sends up some red flags, and IMO it should do so for anyone who believes in America and what we supposedly stand for. You say these terrorists want to destroy America, and I don't doubt that's true. But does that mean we should give up who we are, in essense destroying ourselves?

I want a Congressional investigation into these secret prisons. If it turns out that they are legal (which they may well be) then I will accept them as justified, just as I accept the need for other national/military secrets. But I want a serious, bi-partisan Congressional investigation to make that determination. I don't need to know all the classified details, I just need to know that the detentions are just and legal, and I need to hear it from someone other than the Bush administration. I don't think this is too much to ask.

Okay, but if UBL is the real threat then why hasn't Bush/Rove/Cheney turned over every stone to find him? Why was the CIA unit searching for UBL disbanded? Why was our military focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq?

I don't think that cartoon is any more fitting than portrayals of Cheney wiping his butt with the BoR. Each is funny to those of a certain political bent and regarded to have a measure of "truthiness," but neither is really fair or accurate.

Regarding today's revelations, when I hear "secret CIA prisons" that immediately sends up some red flags, and IMO it should do so for anyone who believes in America and what we supposedly stand for. You say these terrorists want to destroy America, and I don't doubt that's true. But does that mean we should give up who we are, in essense destroying ourselves?

I want a Congressional investigation into these secret prisons. If it turns out that they are legal (which they may well be) then I will accept them as justified, just as I accept the need for other national/military secrets. But I want a serious, bi-partisan Congressional investigation to make that determination. I don't need to know all the classified details, I just need to know that the detentions are just and legal, and I need to hear it from someone other than the Bush administration. I don't think this is too much to ask.

Fair enough, they are justified and legal. There, you have a second source. :)

At the bottom of this page, I'll post that cartoon again. Take a look at all the posts by "The Left" representatives here and tell me honestly if the characterization does not fit. Let me summarize it for you: "The Left" believes that Bush/Rove/Cheney are evil and the real threat. However, UBL is the one who says that his goal is world domination and the mass murder of Americans. But I shouldn't fear an attack, because my real fear should be that some CIA agent is listening in to my cell phone conversations with my kid, or monitoring my emailing habits with Colorado Cyclist.

It's more a matter of which poses a greater threat to the American way of life: A terrorist who lives in a cave and has zero chance at world domination or an unrestricted, unquestioned Executive branch, and its supporters, who cares little for the ideals upon which the nation was founded?

Bush admitting to no Saddam 9-11 connection, multiple times
Admitting to secret CIA prisons where people are held without due process
A Judge saying the wiretaps are so illegal he should cease immediately

and still a chunk of Cons think he's been completely on the up and up

I'm really starting to think we may be doomed by a conspiracy of dunces

lol. Indeed.

Fair enough, they are justified and legal. There, you have a second source. :)

If you're a source, I pawnzerd Stage 17 of this years tour on a big wheels tricycle.

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/424/tricycledr7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Yeah those are CF Reynolds Jr rims , Campy Jr clipless, and custom gold handlebars. What now?

If you're a source, I pawnzerd Stage 17 of this years tour on a big wheels tricycle.

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/424/tricycledr7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Yeah those are CF Reynolds Jr rims , Campy Jr clipless, and custom gold handlebars. What now?

Great choice, it's YOU.

If you're a source, I pawnzerd Stage 17 of this years tour on a big wheels tricycle.

Nah man, Snake pwn3d you with his response. You weren't specific. You'll have to do better else he'll eat your lunch every time.

Great choice, it's YOU.

Pwagle: SEE WHAT I MEAN?

You've been pwn3d again!

At the bottom of this page, I'll post that cartoon again. Take a look at all the posts by "The Left" representatives here and tell me honestly if the characterization does not fit. Let me summarize it for you: "The Left" believes that Bush/Rove/Cheney are evil and the real threat. However, UBL is the one who says that his goal is world domination and the mass murder of Americans. But I shouldn't fear an attack, because my real fear should be that some CIA agent is listening in to my cell phone conversations with my kid, or monitoring my emailing habits with Colorado Cyclist.

Then there's Harry Reid telling us how awful things are on the ground in Iraq. I googled "harry reid travels to iraq" and found he has been to Iraq exactly zero times. Another credible source of information and opinion.

Good thing the NY Times told us about these prisons so we can make sure that these innocent Muslim cobblers can get three hots and a cot in Cuba.
I already told you what I thought of your 'thought it was so funny I am posting it again and again' in another thread...you can peruse there when you get the chance. As for the rest...I think you are terribly misguided. I think that you have lost what it was that made you a conservative...I think you and I have switched places on many core conservative views. If it makes me an appeaser to want "humble foreign policy"...then I am also a conservative. If it makes me anti-american to require a strict interpretation of the constitution...then I am also a conservative. If it makes me a charleton for wanting my government to fear me rather than live in fear of what my government could do...then I am also a conservative. If it puts me in the minority to require openess, transparency and fairness in government...then I am also a conservative.

These are still conservative values. It is just that so many have forgetten in their zeal to play for the winning team, in their demonization of the opposition in ways that would make the anti WWI German Propagandist in Europe blush, the left...the right...no one can even define those terms anymore because they switch sides because of expediancy, partisanship and money...the fear of not playing for a winning team.

No...real liberals...and real conservatives...they sit outside the entire playing field, wondering where their parties went. Wondering why they have to switch their consciousness about what they know is right or wrong just because of an R or a D in the white house or the Congress. It is a shame...because arguing conservatism vs. liberalism is fun...a clash of ideas...intelligent. This is just demagogeury.

A conservative would never give that inch that you are so readily prepared to give away. They would be prepared to fight for what they knew was right as a famous conservative once said...

"The Knights of the Round Table, the Crusaders, all fall back into the past-not only distant but prosaic; these young men, going forth every morn to guard their native land and all that we stand for, holding in their hands these instruments of colossal and shattering power, of whom it may be said that Every morn brought forth a noble chance and every chance brought forth a noble knight."

I already told you what I thought of your 'thought it was so funny I am posting it again and again' in another thread...you can peruse there when you get the chance. As for the rest...I think you are terribly misguided. I think that you have lost what it was that made you a conservative...I think you and I have switched places on many core conservative views. If it makes me an appeaser to want "humble foreign policy"...then I am also a conservative. If it makes me anti-american to require a strict interpretation of the constitution...then I am also a conservative. If it makes me a charleton for wanting my government to fear me rather than live in fear of what my government could do...then I am also a conservative. If it puts me in the minority to require openess, transparency and fairness in government...then I am also a conservative.

These are still conservative values. It is just that so many have forgetten in their zeal to play for the winning team, in their demonization of the opposition in ways that would make the anti WWI German Propagandist in Europe blush, the left...the right...no one can even define those terms anymore because they switch sides because of expediancy, partisanship and money...the fear of not playing for a winning team.

No...real liberals...and real conservatives...they sit outside the entire playing field, wondering where their parties went. Wondering why they have to switch their consciousness about what they know is right or wrong just because of an R or a D in the white house or the Congress. It is a shame...because arguing conservatism vs. liberalism is fun...a clash of ideas...intelligent. This is just demagogeury.

A conservative would never give that inch that you are so readily prepared to give away. They would be prepared to fight for what they knew was right as a famous conservative once said...

"The Knights of the Round Table, the Crusaders, all fall back into the past-not only distant but prosaic; these young men, going forth every morn to guard their native land and all that we stand for, holding in their hands these instruments of colossal and shattering power, of whom it may be said that Every morn brought forth a noble chance and every chance brought forth a noble knight."

This might just be post of the month TMB. Thanks.

I already told you what I thought of your 'thought it was so funny I am posting it again and again' in another thread...you can peruse there when you get the chance. As for the rest...I think you are terribly misguided. I think that you have lost what it was that made you a conservative...I think you and I have switched places on many core conservative views. If it makes me an appeaser to want "humble foreign policy"...then I am also a conservative. If it makes me anti-american to require a strict interpretation of the constitution...then I am also a conservative. If it makes me a charleton for wanting my government to fear me rather than live in fear of what my government could do...then I am also a conservative. If it puts me in the minority to require openess, transparency and fairness in government...then I am also a conservative.

These are still conservative values. It is just that so many have forgetten in their zeal to play for the winning team, in their demonization of the opposition in ways that would make the anti WWI German Propagandist in Europe blush, the left...the right...no one can even define those terms anymore because they switch sides because of expediancy, partisanship and money...the fear of not playing for a winning team.

No...real liberals...and real conservatives...they sit outside the entire playing field, wondering where their parties went. Wondering why they have to switch their consciousness about what they know is right or wrong just because of an R or a D in the white house or the Congress. It is a shame...because arguing conservatism vs. liberalism is fun...a clash of ideas...intelligent. This is just demagogeury.

A conservative would never give that inch that you are so readily prepared to give away. They would be prepared to fight for what they knew was right as a famous conservative once said...

"The Knights of the Round Table, the Crusaders, all fall back into the past-not only distant but prosaic; these young men, going forth every morn to guard their native land and all that we stand for, holding in their hands these instruments of colossal and shattering power, of whom it may be said that Every morn brought forth a noble chance and every chance brought forth a noble knight."

uhhh....you coulda just said Bush sux and saved all that typing. :rolleyes::rolleyes::D

Pwagle: SEE WHAT I MEAN?

You've been pwn3d again!

Wasn't going to dive into this, but what the heck...haha.

Exactly how have I been 'pwned'? And also "again"? The two options I stated were both implied as false. Laid it on mighty thick. So how does his logic fit to the point his comment would be a funny or in essense, the re-pwned? Is there some type of warped sense of logic that runs rampant on this board?

The beginning of the logic line starts when states he is a source (it is assumed he thinks such to be true, but I imply he is not). I state two implied (F)'s. In order for his comment to mean anything he has to renig his original stance and state he is in fact not a source. In the game of childish comebacks, don't you get dq'ed for renigging.

uhhh....you coulda just said Bush sux and saved all that typing. :rolleyes::rolleyes::D

No, because that goes without saying... it happens to be a masterful ode meant for those lost ones among us to ponder, if they still can.

Wasn't going to dive into this, but what the heck...haha.

Exactly how have I been 'pwned'? And also "again"? The two options I stated were both implied as false. Laid it on mighty thick. So how does his logic fit to the point his comment would be a funny or in essense, the re-pwned? Is there some type of warped sense of logic that runs rampant on this board?

The beginning of the logic line starts when states he is a source (it is assumed he thinks such to be true, but I imply he is not). I state two implied (F)'s. In order for his comment to mean anything he has to renig his original stance and state he is in fact not a source. In the game of childish comebacks, don't you get dq'ed for renigging.
/sigh

Dude, you were pwned. Just face it.

In the game of PO, you don't leave yourself open for childish comebacks.

No, because that goes without saying... it happens to be a masterful ode meant for those lost ones among us to ponder, if they still can.

word. TMB is getting more and more eloquent every day. Must be all those French books he's been reading.

Kah Niggets of the round table were just the first episode of European Colonialism in the ME.

but yes TMB you are a Charlatan but you ain't no fraud.

and I say "Bring me a shrubbery!"

NeoCons are just inverse liberals. Want more of a nanny state than most ultra lefties. Difference being they want a big, ugly, mean and domineering nanny

This might just be post of the month TMB. Thanks.


Agreed. It would be nice if more stuff in PO was this thoughtful... good model for all on both sides of the fence, so to speak.

Bush admitting to no Saddam 9-11 connection, multiple times
Admitting to secret CIA prisons where people are held without due process
A Judge saying the wiretaps are so illegal he should cease immediately

and still a chunk of Cons think he's been completely on the up and up

I'm really starting to think we may be doomed by a conspiracy of dunces

Of course, you have links to bush linking Iraq directly to 9/11? I don't believe I ever heard George make that claim.

Anybody listen to the speech?

The part where Bush is saying "we have in place a rigorous process to insure those held at Gitmo belong there" is scary. 'Specially since the "rigorous process" has been judged unconstitutional.

And then there's the Bush-speak. "Questioned by experts" ="tortured".

Anybody listen to the speech?

The part where Bush is saying "we have in place a rigorous process to insure those held at Gitmo belong there" is scary. 'Specially since the "rigorous process" has been judged unconstitutional.

And then there's the Bush-speak. "Questioned by experts" ="tortured".

Well, if Bush says so, I believes him. I mean, all laws are subject to his interpretation. Until a law is deemed legit by Bush, it doesn't apply, right? If he thinks he's right, then he is, until the SCOTUS tells him otherwise.

Nah man, Snake pwn3d you with his response. You weren't specific.
BZZZT.

First of all, Snake was replying to me, no pwagle. Second of all, I did say "Congressional investigation" which I think is specific enough to exclude Snake unless his real-world name is "Senator Wyden" :prrr:

BTW, megadittos to thatsmybush. Great post!

Of course, you have links to bush linking Iraq directly to 9/11? I don't believe I ever heard George make that claim.

He sure as hell implied it...and he didn't go out of his way to dispel that there weren't ties. In fact he encouraged this speculation in almost every speech he gave. Not admitting this is akin to the left agreeing with Clinton that a BJ is not "sex".

Of course, you have links to bush linking Iraq directly to 9/11? I don't believe I ever heard George make that claim.

Who do you think you are trying to fool? We're not idiots here. Bush has made that claim, himself, but mostly it has been his minions, usually Cheney, who act with the full authority and approval of President Bush. If the VP and the cabinet are spreading false information or unapproved messages, the President fires them, or at least disciplines them, right? When has that ever happened? So when Dick Cheney claims that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," that is a message approved by George Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html

Interesting that only 833 troops had been killed in Iraq when that article was written.

Thank-you...

He sure as hell implied it...and he didn't go out of his way to dispel that there weren't ties. In fact he encouraged this speculation in almost every speech he gave. Not admitting this is akin to the left agreeing with Clinton that a BJ is not "sex".

I don't recall him attempting to make that connection. He didn't say it. You guys have accused him of it for so long you are starting to believe your own BS. That's the problem with that kind of stuff, it's as hard for you to keep track of as it is for those of us you are trying to convince.

Who do you think you are trying to fool? We're not idiots here. Bush has made that claim, himself, but mostly it has been his minions, usually Cheney, who act with the full authority and approval of President Bush. If the VP and the cabinet are spreading false information or unapproved messages, the President fires them, or at least disciplines them, right? When has that ever happened? So when Dick Cheney claims that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," that is a message approved by George Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html

Interesting that only 833 troops had been killed in Iraq when that article was written.

I read the article and it falls short of saying Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. It says he was involved with the terrorist organization that was guilty of that attack. It also has a paragraph in which Bush is said to have personally denied the claim you are trying to make. At the time this article came out, the Iraqi insurgencey was mainly led by Al Qaeda. Iraq had become the battleground that it remains today and young Islamic males were coming there to join the fight from the surrounding area. I am not certain of the context of the Cheney statement, are you? Was he saying Iraq had always been the geographic center for AQ or that it had become that center? The perception at that time was that it had become the center and Zarqawi had risen to the status of military leader in that fight. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but the article takes a series of statements from speeches made and makes it's case. The context of the speeches would have meaning, don't you think?

Snake do you understand the term juxtaposition?

If in a speech, within a given sentence or paragraph a person mentions things, the listener draws the connections. So when Bush stumps, says 9-11, war on terror and Iraq the lsitener draws the connections.

here we'll play a game for example

Snakebit, NeoCon Half wit, Child Pornographer

don't get upset, I didn't say anything bad about you. I just juxtaposed the terms.

but here try this, it's a letter from W

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed byIraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Now he's clearly asking Congresses permission to attack Iraq and clearly in article 2 he mentions 9-11 and the war on terror.

Snake do you understand the term juxtaposition?

If in a speech, within a given sentence or paragraph a person mentions things, the listener draws the connections. So when Bush stumps, says 9-11, war on terror and Iraq the lsitener draws the connections.

here we'll play a game for example

Snakebit, NeoCon Half wit, Child Pornographer

don't get upset, I didn't say anything bad about you. I just juxtaposed the terms.

but here try this, it's a letter from W

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed byIraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Now he's clearly asking Congresses permission to attack Iraq and clearly in article 2 he mentions 9-11 and the war on terror.

Well well, progress. This is the first time you have admitted that Bush "clearly" asked Congress for permission to attack Iraq and juxtaposing from that, their yes vote was agree int to it. That how it works?

Well well, progress. This is the first time you have admitted that Bush "clearly" asked Congress for permission to attack Iraq and juxtaposing from that, their yes vote was agree int to it. That how it works?

what choice did they have? It's a GOP controlled congress and if the dems voted no it wouldn't have mattered.

what choice did they have? It's a GOP controlled congress and if the dems voted no it wouldn't have mattered.

That's weak. What happened to principles?

Who do you think you are trying to fool? We're not idiots here. Bush has made that claim, himself, but mostly it has been his minions, usually Cheney, who act with the full authority and approval of President Bush. If the VP and the cabinet are spreading false information or unapproved messages, the President fires them, or at least disciplines them, right? When has that ever happened? So when Dick Cheney claims that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," that is a message approved by George Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html

Interesting that only 833 troops had been killed in Iraq when that article was written.

I know you weren't asking me, but your statement would be true if Bush remained silent on the subject, but it doesn't work if he's publicly saying the opposite of what his "minions" are saying.

Take a look at Cheney's "quote". Doesn't it make you suspicious that the word Iraq is outside of the quotes? It certainly raises a red flag to me. That means the writer is telling you that the quoted words were referring to Iraq.

So what does the transcript say?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we can do what we have to do to prevail in this
conflict. Failure’s not an option. And go back again and think about what’s
involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we
might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security
and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And
it’s very, very important we get it right. If we’re successful in Iraq, if we
can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region
so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United
States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a
safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the
heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have
had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They
understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as
much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that
that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible
for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that.

Say what you will about the strategy that a democratic Iraq will serve as a starting point to stabilize the Middle East, that really isn't my point.

My point is that Cheney was taken out of context. He was talking about Iraq as the heart of the Middle East, not as the source of the terrorists who struck on 9-11.

While I cannot disagree with Cheney's statement as you posted it, it ignores a couple of important points. First, his justification for striving towards victory now was not the original justification for the war, and had it been they wouldn't have had as much support for the war from Congress and the American people. The primary justification was WMDs, which we now know was completely bogus. At worst it was lies, at best gross incompetence. Someone should be held accountable for that. By "someone" of course I mean Bush. I suppose this is water under the bridge; right now there's a war to win in Iraq.

But that brings us to the other major issue. If victory in Iraq is so important (and Cheney is arguably right to say that it is), why has victory been so incompetently persued? Let's face it, the Bush administration clearly had no plan beyond ousting Saddam. As if to remove all doubt, this week we have Gen. Scheid quoting Rumsfeld as saying he would fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan. This whole war has been one blunder after another, and we're obviously losing. Worse yet, we also seem to be losing in Afghanistan because of the Iraq distraction.

I can sort of understand why you conservatives think the war was justified. I don't agree with you, but I can understand your position. What I don't understand is your unwillingness to hold Bush accountable for the gross negligence with which he and his administration have prosecuted the war. Is the leader not responsible for his failures?