i made a point of not listening to bozo tonite. i feel much better than i might have. let me guess...he is tough and resolute in pursuing an uncalled for war with the blood of other people's children because saudi extremists attacked america on 9/11...how am i doing?

and the carnage he has unleashed will make the whole world just like mayberry....eventually.

Bush Lied & Troops Died:

From his weekly radio address to the nation on September 14, 2002 to the speech three weeks later on October 5th, and again on October 7th, President Bush painted Iraq as a "grave and growing" danger to the United States. The President accused Iraq of stockpiling both biological and chemical weapons, having longstanding ties to terrorist groups which were capable and willing to deliver weapons of mass death. The President's carefully crafted comments convinced both Congress and the American people that our country faced a danger that eclipsed the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. On October 16, 2002 Congress caving into the avalanche of pressure from the executive branch by passing Public Law 107-243, the Joint Resolution which authorized the President to use force against Iraq should Saddam fail to comply with the U.N. Resolutions that he disarm his nation of weapons of mass destruction and cease his support for international terrorist organizations. On January 28, 2003 during his annual State of the Union speech President Bush, instead of reporting on the state of the country instead uttered language carefully crafted and designed to scare all Americans, thereby setting the final stage of war. President Bush stated that "Saddam had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough to kill several million people." The President went on the state that Saddam had materials "sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject million of people to death by respiratory failure. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

In March of 2003, President Bush with the Resolution in hand ordered the attack on Iraq. Using the latest technology and best practices crafted by Pentagon generals the remnants of the already decimated Iraqi military were swept aside, Baghdad was captured, Saddam was toppled from power, the U.S. gained control of Iraq's oil reserves, the second largest in the world, and a new business friendly, pro free-trade interim government was eventually installed. Former U.S. Secretary of State Howard Baker began working with corporations and countries to restructure or reduce Iraq's estimated $125 billion in debt, which had gone largely un-serviced since the Iran/Iraq war. On May 1, 2003 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, declared "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

On Friday May 30th cracks begin appearing in the administrations bodyguard of lies served up to justify the war against Iraq. On that day Marine Corps Lt. General James T. Conway, Commanding General of the First Marine Expeditionary Force in a press conference in southern Iraq made the following comment about Iraq's WMD's, "It was a surprise to me then as it remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons in some of the forward dispersal sites, "Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition-supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, and they're simply not there."

I didn't hear any solutions but I hear 9/11 - alot!

welldone dnc research!

I heard one comment made by the chimp tonight in talking about the bloodshed of our young men and women and horrible it is to see it, and then he had the brass to say..."but it is worth it!" If his ass was on the line, or his two daughters were doing their fair share, or for that matter the 99% of Congress that have no one enlisted and at risk, weren't being cheerleaders, then maybe (and even then it would be a stretch)he could get away with a statement like that. I wish that some form of protest by the loved ones of those who died could be dumped on this bozo's doorstep.

Great job DNC research team. He's played out....Even the clearly friendly crowd didn't know when to jump to their feet....

Hmmmm. W mentioned "insurgents" six times: four of those times, he used the phrase "terrorists and insurgents." Is this one more strategy to help blur the line between the 9.11/bin Laden/Afghanistan and Saddam/Iraq/thismess?

And in case anybody was wondering:
References to 9/11: 6
References to Osama bin Laden: 2
References to terrorism/anti-terrorism/terrorists: 28 (yep, that's almost one per minute)

two points to remember now that Bush has officially retired WMD as a motive for going to war:

1. most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia

2. there were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there. Bush has personnaly created the most successful terrorist recruitment campaign in the history of terrorism. At the same time he has significantly diminshed recruitment to our own armed services.

I think the main "point" of his speech was to blur the line between 9/11 and Iraq.

I felt like I was watching a 2004 campaign speech.

The events of the last two-three weeks, follow the usual pattern of attacking and sliming Democrats followed by scaring people on terrorism.

First, they attacked our chairman. Then, they slimed poor Dick Durbin. Then, Rove slimed all Democrats and shamefully used 9-11 for political purposes.

Bush then makes a speech linking 9-11/terrorism to Iraq. His speech was no surprise to me.

Well, I already wrote my letter to the editor for today on his dreadful speech that provided no exit strategy. I think I have done all I could for now.

Good Night, Friends!

For those who find prayer helpful,

Let us pray for peace.

We thank You, O Lord, for destroying the dividing wall of enmity and granting peace to those who seek Your mercy.

We pray, O Lord, for all those who suffer from acts of war.

We pray for your peace and your mercy in the midst of the great suffering that people are now inflicting on each other.

Grant us Your Peace.

Amen

By the way, there is a CNN quick vote:

Do you approve of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war?

Thus far:

26% - yes
74% - no

Bush: It is important...to lay out a timetable...
No, in this evenings speech on TV President Bush did not announce a timetable or support for a timetable for withdrawal. However...

Speaking during the Clinton andministration's involvement in Eastern Europe:
Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Scripps Howard -- Feb. 9, 1999 "I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

On his own war in Iraq:
White House press release June 24, 2005: "There's not going to be any timetables. I mean, I've told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it's in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that's the mission, then why would you -- why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy

"Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won," Bush said.

so here is a big part of the problem. while the repubs ridiculed kerry for seeing terrorism as a crimminal justice problem they really do think they are fighting the germans in world war 2 where there is a standing army to make a stand. their primitive brains can't concieve of the idea that they are growing terrorists...that there are people who are now suicide bombers who used to be gargage mechanics and regular army soldiers and that this growth is undoubtedly not restricted to iraq...

"Iraq is where they are making there stand". Does the pres know the only reason that is, is because he invaded the country. Worst pres ever. Worst than Taft.

It is unfortunate that President Bush uses soldiers as political tools. This was proven tonight when ABC and NBC news confirmed that White House advance men were placed in the crowd with the soldiers and initiated the only round of applause which occurred during his speech. I also noticed an absence of any mention of soldiers who are currently serving because of the stop-loss program, also-known-as "the backdoor draft".

MSNBC was an embarrassment as they held a "town hall" meeting at a Baptist church in Nashville, TN. The panel was completely composed of conservatives, and the crowd was evangelical. Tonight's MSNBC performance was worse than Fox and I hope Chairman Dean confronts Chris Matthews about it tomorrow.

It is sad that the media and rightist Democrats have taken the stance "now that we're there we must win". I still hope that the media could possible hold the administration accountable for misleading the nation. But in order to do that, they will also have to take responsibility for misleading us.

"i made a point of not listening to bozo tonite."

That a rule with me every day and night. His speeches are non events except for counting the lies, which is much better done from a transcript. I'd bet my last dollar that not many watched speech either -- just GOP sycophants and Dem masochists.

More WMD`s(Weapons of Mass Deception).

One thing is true about the lying Bush-it speech tonight. It will help many people decide to buy Democracy Bonds!

If that doesn't do it, listen to the Senate Democratic Oversight Hearing on Halliburton Overcharges in Iraq on CSPAN.org

i find it hard to make an efort to believe the statements that the president of our country is making. i try to not be quick to criticize people but in a situation like this it is quite difficult. the public address given tonight by george w. bush was a great example of how he is running his term in office. he keeps us all in the dark, and keeps us all guessing. The troops fighting in iraq have been there for 27 months. Thus far the war that was said to only last a short period of timeby our president has lasted for over 2 years, and from the address our president made tonight shows no signs of ending soon. i believe if we want to fight this problem we need our president to start being straight with us and to stop beating around the bush. 2700 troops have been lost and this is no small matter. it almost seems as if our president has forgotten which country he is running.

i find it hard to make an efort to believe the statements that the president of our country is making. i try to not be quick to criticize people but in a situation like this it is quite difficult. the public address given tonight by george w. bush was a great example of how he is running his term in office. he keeps us all in the dark, and keeps us all guessing. The troops fighting in iraq have been there for 27 months. Thus far the war that was said to only last a short period of timeby our president has lasted for over 2 years, and from the address our president made tonight shows no signs of ending soon. i believe if we want to fight this problem we need our president to start being straight with us and to stop beating around the bush. 2700 troops have been lost and this is no small matter. it almost seems as if our president has forgotten which country he is running.

Question. Just donated monthly via Democracy Bond link. When we donate via the site, we always get an email right away. I usually don't close the donation completion window until the email comes. We have not gotten one yet, which is most unusual.

Does that mean it did not go through? Or hopefully, does it mean the site is very very busy...I hope. It said it was submitted, and said thanks.

Chris3 - don't forget the 12,000 soldiers wounded and out of commission, too, nor the countless soldiers who will need intensive therapy after witnessing what they have over there. We've lost a good chunk of our young people for this oil campaign. Have you been reading the on-line journals of these soldiers? They're horrible yet amazing. I hope someone is doing a compilation of them 'cause the similarities despite differences in mindset, location, and even military duty are astonishing.

Jesse - Can you change your post to read "1,700 American lives" or "1,700 US Troops". With countless numbers of people killed in this senseless war, "1,700 people" seems rather misleading.

"If...the 99% of Congress that have no one enlisted and at risk, weren't being cheerleaders..."
Posted by JohntheElder on June 28, 2005 at 09:21 PM

There's a lot more opposition than that: 133 Representatives and 23 Senators voted AGAINST the Iraq Resolution in 2002. The overwhelming majority were Democrats. Members of Congress who originally opposed the resolution have continued to oppose it vociferously, particularly Kucinich, Conyers, Woolsey, Waters, Abercrombie, Boxer, and Kennedy.

23 Representatives from California voted NO on the 2002 resolution, along with the majority of Representatives from Oregon and Washington State.

Reference Project VoteSmart:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote.php?type=category&search_1=Military%2BIssues&search_2=2002&go2.x=6&go2.y=10

The Progressive Caucus strongly opposes the war; most of its members are calling for an orderly withdrawal of forces from Iraq.

"While we are unwavering in our support for our men in women in harm's way, their Commander-in-Chief's leadership is lacking.

"Yes, Mr. President. Welcome to North Carolina. North Carolinians are eager for honest answers."

The most beautiful sound I ever heard: Democratic leaders speaking fearlessly and truthfully.

CNN Quick Vote:
Which word best describes President Bush's speech?
Reassuring
14%
2361 votes

Uplifting
7%
1093 votes

Worrying
79%
13068 votes

Total: 16522 votes

Missing choices: disgusting, appalling, sickening, degrading, phoney, insincere, two-faced, ignorant........

Numbers I

It has been reported that the insurgency consists of only 2-5% of the type of terrorists Bush speaks of. If there are 20,000 insurgents total 400 – 1,000 are foreign terrorists, leaving 19,600 - 19,000 people fighting for something else… the liberation of their country perhaps?

Numbers II

Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters out of the 100,000+ Iraqis that have been killed and God-knows-how-many that have been imprisoned since this war began. Hundreds seems like a small number to build the complete speech around... unless you're trying to mislead people.

As long as they're only killing our friends

The “defeat them abroad” statement is just plain silly to me. Are we to believe that the terrorists have some kind of rule where they’ll be kicked out of their organization if they commit an act of terror in any other country?

Also, it contradicts what Bush himself says. How many times have he and his people told us that it is not a matter of if the terrorists attack us but when. As a matter of fact, in this speech, two paragraphs before, Bush speaks of attacks in “Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, and elsewhere”. These places are not some strange places on a map; these are friends, allies, fellow coalition members. Are we supposed to be thrilled with the fact that their citizens have been killed since 9/11 and ours have not?

Our Mission is Clear: Never Mind Yesterday or Today if I Tell You Something Else Tomorrow

Our mission is not clear, or is it, or was it... tough to tell with Baghdad Bush sometimes. On March 6, 2003, (President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference), a few short weeks before the public war in Iraq began; Bush also told us:

Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.

Seeing Images

He doesn't read, doesn't watch TV, and only gets information from a few people at the White House. I’d love to know where Bush sees the images of violence and bloodshed. American mainstream media sources only allow newspaper-reading, TV-watching folks see little more than a few flashes per week.

Osama bin Forgotten

Although it is important that we know where bin Laden thinks the central war on terror is, we are the ones that should be dictating it. The central front in the war on terror is the ground bin Laden himself is walking upon, everything beyond than that is secondary.

Bush and members of his administration promised they would never forget who attacked us on 9/11 and he uses "the lessons of September 11th" in the speech. Will Baghdad Bush's audacity to quote this criminal to support the insane, illegal, inept, you-word-here, invasion/occupation of Iraq be decried throughout the land?

Bush certainly did not address his administration's two-faced approach to terrorism. While supposedly fighting the "war on terrorism", Bush did not mention that his administration has signed a ceasefire agreement with the antiIranian government MEK(Mujahedin-e Khalq), and has been using this terrorist organization as the prime source of intelligence information about Iran's nuclear program.

With some of the richest oil stocks in the world, there is no way that Iran needs nuclear power for it's people. This is merely a public cover for a weapons program. In fact the defeated candidate, cleric Akban Hashemi Rafsanjani, as late as December gave an address in his Mosque requesting that all Islamic states acquire nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Rafsanjani, was considered the "moderate" in Iran's rigged election in which 1,000 reformer candidates were not allowed to run by Iran's hardline clerics. The radical ultraright mayor of Tehran that won the runoff election is far more hardline than Rafsanjani, and plans to go ahead with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and most likely weapons.

From this backdrop, while the State Department officially ranks the MEK as a terrorist organization, it is nonetheless a terrorist organization with Bush Administration covert support. In fact Richard Perle was even the keynote speaker at a recent MEK fundraising event hosted by a MEK front organization. The leader of the MEK, terrorist leader Maryam Rajavi, also addressed this fundraising event by videophone from Paris.

The MEK is well known for using it's bases in Iraq to launch rocket attacks, bombings,and other terrorist actions that have killed many Iranian civilians. And this has moltivated Iran's government to respond by sending foreign fighters like Zarqawi to battle both American soldiers and MEK bases in Iraq. This has created a proxy war between Iran and the U.S. that the Bush Administration will not publicly acknowledge.

Not only does the United States allow terrorist organizations like the MEK to fundraise to sponsor bombings and other acts of violence, but Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, nearly all MidEast states and Iran, all allow terrorist organizations to recruit, train fighters, and fundraise.

The American effort in Iraq does not involve any effort to prevent these foreign fighters from organizing in nearly every MidEast nation, and Northern Africa, and it does not prevent Iran from allowing one single terrorist organization which has a goal of raising up one million fighters to enter Iraq and Israel over time. With no military strategy to defeat states like Saudi Arabia or Iran allowing so many foreign fighters to enter Iraq, and no good way to seal Iraq's borders, it must be assumed that the U.S. has no real way to ever win the "war on terrorism".

Neither the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any state has any desire to prevent terrorist fundraising, recruiting or training. AntiAmerican insurgents will continue to pour into Iraq from all borders, and America will continue to allow MEK terrorists to fundraise and organize in America.

This is the pathetic policy that Bush did level with the American public tonight. Just like Vietnam, when military planners cannot stop a flow of fresh insurgent fighters into South Vietnam, the war could no be won. And so far Iraq's own defense forces are similar to the failed Vietnamization of the Vietnam War.

Bush presented no plan to bring stability to Iraq. He presented no plan to win a war with terrorism in that country. America is more vulnerable than ever to another terrorist attack as Iraq is acting as a magnet attracting Islamic nationalism to rid the MidEast of all Western influence. Playing under the current rules, America cannot win such a struggle. Only a far different policy pressuring all states to stop all terrorism would be a major step top stem this flow of terrorists into Iraq.

Forced myself to watch the speech. Even in middle of second term W does not seem comfortable doing something as simple as walking up to a podium. He is in way over his head.

Feeling conflicted over my glee at seeing his ineptitude finally sinking in with the country and the horror he is responsible for inflicting on so many humans with a rush to war.

The speech tonight will motivate many people to become involved in electing a President who is intelligent and embraces the world. I believe it!

On President Bush's Speech, June 29th, 2005, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina

It was a pretty weak sales pitch the oil-company CEO made tonight (28 June 2005). Pay no attention to the man behind the .. uh.. Podium.

Dear Sir. Be Straight with us. Stop BS'ing us. Please!

We are in Iraq to control the Middle Eastern oil supply. These guys (represented by our President) won't own up to that because they know OIL is actually a bad plan and the American People won't buy it, with good reason. Global Warming is why it's a bad plan; but they stick to it because in many cases OIL money got them into office and still holds their puppet-strings, and they're not looking into the future more than a couple years anyway. They deny global warming, forcing scientists WE employ to alter the reports of their undeniable, sinister conclusions on the subject. How about an overheating Armageddon, courtesy of Pharisees and Moneychangers? Corrupt reasoning could cost us dearly, soon enough for us all to see it.

This asset-grab in Iraq, prescribed by the Project for the New American Century, could actually bankrupt the United States of America, and that could very well result in the Balkanization of our own "homeland". Those in power lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the attack on Iraq. The Downing Street memo, along with other documentation, demonstrates the motive for this pre-meditated war crime (invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation) that was in nebulous planning YEARS before 9/11/01. Tell your co-workers and your customers about the Downing Street Memo. Just say the words "Downing Street Memo". The Press will have no choice but to address it as more and more, the word gets out.

If the purpose of the Iraq Quagmire was sincerely to nation-build (something Bush said he would NOT do, while he was campaigning), to spread the freedom of democracy and remove weapons of mass destruction, why didn't we attack someone like North Korea? They don't have OIL. That's Why. If our President honestly wants to nation-build, we have one nation right here that's needing some serious work. Do you wear Chinese clothes too? Did YOUR job go to Bangalore?

When the President this evening said, "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." he was describing a modern-day Vietnamization. If you follow this logic then, like in Nixon's Vietnam, gradually there will be more and more air strikes, more civilian casualties and more resulting resistance. Also, regarding "standing down", why are we buying and building permanent bases in Iraq now?

Once again, the President used his number one cash cow: the murder of thousands of working people in buildings in New York City in 2001. It enabled him to secure the office of the Presidency for a while longer (until enough people wake up). This is in keeping with Goering's strategy: of keeping "the masses" in fear in order to keep them under control. Rove knows about that kind of stuff.

Maybe some of the time wasted behind the podium, justifying this oil-grab, could have gone to explaining why the FAA air-traffic control tapes on 9/11/01 were destroyed and scattered.

The fact that a great deal of energy has been expended by the current power-structure and their pundits to stifle the information presented by John Perkins ("Confessions of an Economic Hit Man") and essays by college-professor Ward-Churchill, that demonstrate how incidents like 9/11 are basically "blowback" resulting from pseudo-colonial economic policies spanning generations, should be enough for anyone with half a mind to suspect ANY claims from the current Administration and their cronies.

On the idea that they "hate freedom": .. gimme a break. Show me a single human being who "hates freedom". Whaddya take us for?

When our President said, "every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves" I was reminded that in World War II, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers went and fought to protect themselves individually, their homes and their families. It was clear that the corporatist puppet Adolf Hitler had designs on Europe and on America too. There was no choice but to stop that fascist machine or risk being overrun by it. The Nazi soldiers our troops defeated had been trained to place their state and the "master race" above their own individuality. This is a principle of Socialism ("National Socialism" in that case). We are NOT socialists. We are a democratic republic of (sometimes rugged) individuals (or we WOULD be if we still had enough brave, honest people in the press to cut through the lies they're being fed, so that the American people could see for themselves that those who have been bought into office are no longer working to support and defend the constitution of our own country, OR our civil liberties as individuals). Many of those who falsely claim to be "Republicans" today are more akin to the elitist, Federalist Tories who passed such laws as the "Alien and Sedition Act", prohibiting dissent, in the infancy of our country, and deserve to be recognized as such in the press. Serve the Truth.

As the President finished his speech with the usual "God Bless America", those words prompted me to reflect that Abraham Lincoln once said, "...my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side". In my opinion that means doing what is right. I strongly urge those in power to begin doing that. I say, bring our children home, and figure out how to transition our oil-based economy into one based on hydrogen. Save our planet and our descendents.

Unless, of course, what you really want is Armageddon. I don't.

--- Mark Frankenberg

Although I'm a liberal, I tried to listen and honestly give the President credit for any points he scored.

I counted two. And both of them are only counted when one considers that they are both an acknowledgement of failure.

The first was when he quoted bin Laden saying how important Iraq is for his side. Point conceded. The hitch: He reminds us that Osama is around to quote, and the unspoken fact is that Osama himself is important to victory for our side, but we don't have him (heck, we don't even have Zarqawi yet, since we didn't think he was important enough to target during the early days of the invasion when we actually did have our way).

The second point was when he spoke against a timetable by saying that then the enemy could 'wait us out.' Point conceded again. The hitch: Well, this comes almost two years to the day after Bush, in an act of supreme arrogance, challenged the insurgents to 'bring it on' and attack American troops. They did, and the unspoken fact is that if we set such a date, they are now strong enough that there is little doubt that they COULD 'wait it out.'

GW Bush, complete and utter failure....did anybody else play the "GW Speech" drinking game tonight.....Dang!!! got a house full of drunk democrats!!

--:--

June 28, 2005

On the President’s War Speech

Having been silent on the war policies of this Administration since I wrote a series of essays before the bombs fell where I criticized the logic leading to the bloodshed, I both commend the President on a frank and comprehensive outline of his goals tonight and for finally admitting – if only vaguely – that "our progress has been uneven" in winning the peace in Iraq.

Uneven is to put it mildly.

Our civilian leaders of the war utterly failed in planning for the peace.

The heavy hand with which we have been using to wallop the enemy has also whipped up the fervor that feeds the hatred of America.

The political gains which the President spoke so highly of are undermined by our insensitivity to the basic human rights of detainees and the day-to-day chaos which ordinary Iraqis must live with, since the only secure area of the country is a protected little green zone within the capitol.

And worst yet, our soldiers must bravely roll out for duty not knowing if an improvised explosive devise, sniper’s bullet or car bomb awaits them. A faceless ghostlike enemy hovers unseen in the air and every day steals the final breath of our heroic soldiers, marines and National Guard personnel.

When Senators like John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) say in open hearings that the American people are seeking honest answers from the President and a congressional resolution seeking a timetable for withdrawal is authored by a Republican congressman from North Carolina, it is obvious that the war we are losing is for the hearts and minds of the American people.

In that respect, the President did himself some good tonight.

His willingness to concede that "our progress has been uneven" only hints at the failure to secure the peace, but it is a start. It is only a single phrase within a long speech otherwise brimming with bravado, but it may be the most honest statement we’ve yet seen from this President on the costs of the war.

In March 2003, before the bombs fell, I wrote a column entitled "THE COST OF WAR, PEACE AND SECRECY," in which I stated that, "Put simply and cynically, this President wants war."

Before that, I wrote, "I do not agree with the logic leading to this war, nor do I believe that the President is leveling with the American people about the tremendous long-term costs of our exercise in nation building."

This simple assumption seems born out by "The Downing Street Memo." The document – which can be found at http://downingstreetmemo.com – contains minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002 that, taken together with several other leaked UK government documents, paint a picture of a President intent on invasion, and a loyal ally troubled both by how it could be justified and by what it would bring.

And so to have the President finally offer frankness to the American people is a good thing, and I applaud him for it.

As I wrote in March 2003, "Ultimately, no one will quibble over money [to fund war operations], but it is a mark of the President's faith in the American people that he should honestly and openly discuss the potential costs in advance of our attack."

Yes, in his speech tonight, the President did away with any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Yes, he laid out a case for our mission that refuses to set even a broad timeline or expected costs. But at least he finally offered a sliver of frankness to the American people, a group which to read recent polls does not in the majority stand with him on his war policy.

Tonight, I believe, the President bought himself some time. I think that the voices in Congress calling for a timetable to bring our troops home will be quieted, at least momentarily. And the short-term polling will likely show a return of majority support to his positions, at least momentarily.

I wish the President well on the path he laid out tonight, primarily because his success will mean the speedier return of our brave American service personnel from "over there" – more than half of who are citizen soldiers serving in the National Guard and reserves.

Mr. President, use this moment wisely, for failure to act in good faith and to stay on the path of frankness will lead not simply to a resumption in the calls for withdrawal, but a wholesale abandonment by the American people of your exercise in nation-building in Iraq.

Sincerely,

William R. "Bill" Orton
billorton@earthlink.net
Costa Mesa, California

Democratic nominee, 2002
67th State Assembly district, of Calif.

--:--

Of course, usually he doesn't get any points from me, so this (just by its acknowlegement of reality) was one of his best speeches. But look what I'm comparing it to.

Doug-in-KC:

I'd still rather have a house full of drunk Democrats than a (White) House full of sober Republicans.

Dear Editor,

When did it become a presidential prerogative to redefine the meaning of words? Terrorists are people who injure or kill inconsequential people, whom they don't know and with whom they have no quarrel. Their purpose is to impress or affect the actions of those who have done them wrong.
So, by definition, the people who assassinate political, military or even religious leaders whom they perceive to have sold out their country to an occupying force don't qualify as terrorists. Giving them that name merely creates more confusion about what's really going on.
Indeed, one could more correctly argue that the Iraqi citizens killed in the fall of 2002 by American bombing runs, whose intent was to "provoke" Iraq into a retaliatory strike against some other hapless population, were really the victims of terror attacks, albeit orchestrated by the United States.
Obviously, there is nothing to preclude a nation from resorting to terroristic behavior. The definition depends on the innocence of the victims and the perpetrator's intent--to affect the behavior of someone other than the target--rather than the potency of the arsenal.
While this is not the first time the American president has mischaracterized the behavior of his opponents, what I want to know is why the press keeps letting him get away with it.

Eli, nice summation, except to say that I do not give him the "Iraq is an important part of our strategy" point. Most would say that Hussein was a secularist, which put him at odds with Bin Laden. Iraq is an important part of the strategy, sure, but that's like saying "an important part of my strategy to survive is climb out of this car I drove into the lake." We now have committed over 1700 lives, and countless dollars in Iraq, and as BB said above, ruined our Armed services ability to recruit.

IRAQ IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11/01

It is known that OSAMA bin LADEN IS NOT IN IRAQ

BUSH CONTINUES TO LIE, LIE, LIE.

The United States need to bring all the military personnel home and apologize to Iraq and let that country do whatever that country will do to set itself straight which will never be exactly what the United States wants, but the United States does not have the right to order democracy in Iraq.

My neighbor is hateful and kills my dogs. Do I have the right for a preemptive strike? No, I don't. Sadaam Hussein only talked, he never even killed a dog belonging to the United States.

I vote to impeach Bush. He keeps saying the same lies. We are not fighting there (Iraq) to keep from fighting here (USA). The United States needs to get out. We won't have a plan as long as Bush is in office. President Bush cares nothing about a plan to get out because the extreme Right is making an extreme amount of money off this war. Anyone who doesn't see this is burying their head in the sand or doesn't have the capability of insight.

Bring our troops home from Iraq. They don't belong there.

The president doesn't have a strategy for how to end this war, a war we never should have been in. We got into this war because of lies. There never were any weapons of mass destruction. Does the president believe that he can honestly insult the intelligence of the American people by lying?

The Downing Street Memo is proof that something shady is going on. Among other things, the memo said: Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD's. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
military action...

In a letter to President Bush released May 6, Eighty-nine members of Congress asked for an explanation of a secret British memo that said
"intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002, and said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the
legal justifications for the war".

If Congress is troubled over the lies and facts that got us into this war, shouldn't we be troubled as well?

We got into this war based on lies – the wrong way. It’s time to get out the right way. The first step is to realize that the Bush policy is
out of touch with reality.

We need a real exit plan with a real timeline providing real accountability for our leaders. We need to turn control of the training of Iraqi forces and the rebuilding of Iraq to the international community. And we must renounce permanent military bases in Iraq because that angers the Iraqi people.

Bring our troops home from Iraq.

Hi

Bush's Occupation must end. It's unjust, inhumane, and unwarranted. Transition to genuine Iraqi independence must be orderly, but the the first steps of such a transition must begin promptly. Democrats should work hard to renounce and discredit the domineering, arrogant, patronizing attitudes which have characterized Bush's Occupation.
It's unrealistic for any Democrat to advocate for some imaginary, hypothetical occupation which would be fair and humane and administered by Democrats. Such a benign occupation DOES NOT EXIST and NEVER WILL EXIST. There will be no Democratic president in office for the next 3+ years. The only Iraqi occupation which can be found on this physical planet is Bush's, and there's nothing benevolent about it. Democrats should oppose it wholeheartedly.

The "Pottery Barn" maxim will not work as a justification for Bush's Occupation. The Bush administration doesn't even try to "fix" anything--it just keeps on busting up the place.

Posted by Martha on June 29, 2005 at 09:44 AM

I understand the deciet that this administration put the American people through to authorize the war in Iraq. I beleive in firmly that he committed an impeachable offense. However, I cannot help but think of the "pottery barn" rule that if you break it you fix it. President Bush broke Iraq and for national security reasons we must fix it so it does not become the next Afghanistan. Before we pull out we must make sure that Iraq is a fully secure functioning nation. I know most dems on this blog doesn't agree with that, but anyone who studied foreign affairs know this to be true. The village idiot from Texas put us in a catch 22 situation.

Posted by KansasDemocrat on June 29, 2005 at 02:09 PM

Which is why the 06 mid term elections are going to be very critical. The establishment of the checks and balances must be restored. Hopefully we can regain a majority in the Senate.

The "Pottery Barn" maxim does not justify a MILITARY occupation. Soldiers are trained and equipped to destroy things, not to fix them. They drop bombs, shoot people, kick down doors, and do other things which can't be fairly described as repair work. If you hired a repairman, would you be pleased if he sprayed your house with machine gun fire and lobbed shells at it?
The U.S. should give Iraqis money for reconstruction, but Iraqis should be the ones to administer the efforts.
The U.S. should bring the troops home.

I'm sorry but while I hear a lot of criticism of the President and his administration, I'm still not hearing much in the way of a unified strategy from the Democratic party leaders. Why aren't they telling America:

That George Bush never had any intention to leave Iraq? I don't think this is an unfounded accusation. Where is the proof against it? We don't see it in their actions.

That the insurgency in Iraq is mostly inspired by Iraqis believing us to be an occupying force setting up a puppet governement? That we intend to make their country one large US base in the Middle East? That withdrawl will help quell insurgency?

They need to propose specific timetables or milestones as part of an exit strategy. That will help encourage the Iraqis to stand for themselves, especially if we make it clear that we are planning a withdrawal. To set the clock ticking for Iraq to get its house in order. That they must get their act together by then, and begin to take the insurgents down themselves.

Why do they not insist that we train Iraqi troops and police overseas alongside Americans and other allies? If need be, to house their families during that time to assure their safety, while education them.

There have been calls for more armor to be sent, to accept NATO's offer of involvement along with others. There have been other reasonable ideas, but again not spoken in a unified Democratic voice.

Why aren't they calling for a rollback on the enormous tax breaks for the wealthy at this time? Asking for their sacrifice to help fund the war especially when many of those wealthy are making huge profits by helping to wage it?

Why don't they insist that America cut our losses and take steps to give up most of the financial gains the Adminsitration hopes to see from Iraq? To stop stealing from Iraq?

If we want allies to help, we must insist that Halliburton and other contractors be replaced by other companies that can win bids on an international level.

To make it manditory that Iraqis be hired first when possible to win such a bid.

Why aren't they working to clear the way for other nations to take gain the Iraqi's trust and have a chance to gain a potential financial foothold in Iraq as well? I guarentee if that's the case, other nations will take a second look. With luck, Iraq will cut us in on some of the market too.

Our Democratic leaders have done enough finger pointing. We won't convince the rest of the country to support us unless we have clear, concise proposals for our future.

The worst thing about lies is the fact that people often believe them.

Prior to 2003, Saddam Hussein provoked a great deal of anxiety and anger. He invaded Kuwait without provocation. He launched SCUD missiles at Israel with no warning towards the end of the first Gulf War. He used poison gas and other frightening weapons.

Although George HW Bush and Bill Clinton both did a good job of containing Saddam, anxiety and anger can linger for a very long time. I think that a lot of Democrats went along with Bush in 2002-2003 because they were blinded by their emotions about Saddam. They were susceptible to the Bush administration's
manipulations.

Most politicians can't stand to admit that they've make a mistake or that they've been duped. It certainly doesn't help when they're worried that opponents will refer to them as "flip-floppers".

I hope that Democrats will all stand up and oppose Bush. I hope that they'll renounce and repudiate his deceit, no matter what they may have believed in the past. All human beings need to respond to new evidence, observe and interpret the results of decisions made, and learn from experience. Forget the Republican's self-serving nonsense about "flip-flopping". Decent, normal human beings change their minds when there's a good reason to do so.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there a Democratic Party position on the War in Iraq?

Watching the Fort Bragg speech, what can be weirder than seeing George aWol Bush speaking from a position of "authority" to all those REAL enlisted people who are willing to strive for excellence and serve? It is weird and lacks reality somehow.

In fact, most everything George aWol Bush does, lacks grounding in the real world.

When he mentioned the July 4th holiday and encouraged a special expenditure of energy and effort in "honoring", that too was weird. Shouldn't this kind of respect be a given all the time? Indeed, if an expenditure of effort is needed by the mass of Americans, it would be a worthier effort to push to pressure Bush himself to instruct Rumsfeld to spend some of the billion$ allocated for the war directly on needed equipment for troops and benefits for returning vets.

But there's something weirder still. And that is George aWol Bush attempting to co-opt the 4th of July for the propagandist promotion of his war in Iraq. It shows how the most powerful people in this nation are totally ignorant of their place in the history of world events. Bush and his elite group created a war by perverting intelligence, fabricating documents, and fashioning a lie as though they are above the law. It is an act of corruption so venal, it displays no care or concern for those who must fund and fight and suffer this atrocity. The entire Iraq affliction stands before the world community as transparent -- and just the kind of thing the Declaration of Independence rose up to challenge! The 4th of July afterall celebrates the signing of the Declaration of Independence from the Tyranny of mad King George III. And it reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are institutes among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Further on the document indicts King George III for purposefully infringing those rights in order to establish an "absolute Tyranny". (New Columbia Encyclopedia)

The key phrase here is "consent of the governed". It is just this "consent of the governed" that George aWol Bush has mutilated. Bush has attempted to trick the governed into consenting to the fabricated necessity for war in Iraq, but his disgusting trickery is now exposed in detail by the Downing Street Minutes.

Which brings us to: What was missing from Bush's Fort Bragg speech? And the answer is: All that actually makes up the reality of the situation. In Bush's speech we are given a propagandist's invention, and it can only strike us as weird because it is. It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation--neither how the situation came about nor how it exists in present time!

The Bush policy to disregard laws against torture and due process is the Totalitarian's attempt to seize the ultimate power of Tyranny. And on the gameboard of the Iraq Invasion, the whole world is already on the square marked "The Deception Revealed", while George aWol Bush and his cabal are still on Square One pretending the rest of us don't know their schemes, and scams, their war profiteering and murder of our children, and the destruction of the Iraqi descendents of one of the greatest civilizations on Earth.

George W. Bush can no longer be AWOL. It is time to declare our Independence from this twisted Despot, and make him report in real time. It is time to impeach this Tyrant.

The "Pottery Barn" maxim does not justify a MILITARY occupation. Soldiers are trained and equipped to destroy things, not to fix them. They drop bombs, shoot people, kick down doors, and do other things which can't be fairly described as repair work. If you hired a repairman, would you be pleased if he sprayed your house with machine gun fire and lobbed shells at it?
The U.S. should give Iraqis money for reconstruction, but Iraqis should be the ones to administer the efforts.
The U.S. should bring the troops home.

Posted by KansasDemocrat on June 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM

Well I guess you missed some links and articles about two months ago in which at that time $8 billion dollars to rebuilt the Iraqi government and basically the country could not be accounted for. There were instances where there were Americans who were supposed to assist with this, but conveniently disappeared. It was also stressed that the Iraqi government did not have the accounting features in place to oversee these funds.

So!!! That money has gone down a black hole somewhere.

The worst thing about lies is the fact that people often believe them.

Posted by KansasDemocrat on June 30, 2005 at 11:35 AM

They sound so much better and people don't have to use active thought with them. The truth makes folks have to wonder and click open their thought processes.

This is why they have worked so well with the GOP.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there a Democratic Party position on the War in Iraq?

Posted by Joan on June 30, 2005 at 03:22 PM

There has been a wide range of attitudes within the party, so the party hasn't been able to come up with an official position that represents a large majority.
Democratic Members of Congress split on the Iraq Resolution in 2002. During the 2003 Democratic Primary, there was considerable disagreement between the candidates.
Since January '05, there have been calls for withdrawal of troops from a group of representatives, including Woolsey, Kucinich, and Abercrombie. Their appeals are just beginning to gain widespread attention.

WOW! I DIDNT KNOW SEN.SPECTOR WAS A BILL FRIST LAPDOG TOO ! I THOUGHT SEN. SPECTOR WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COM. NOT BILL FRIST? WHY, AS SEN. SPECTOR, STATED IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE, DOE'S HE HAVE GET WITH SEN FRIST REGARDING JUDICIARY NOMINEE HEARINGS?#!? HERE WE GO AGAIN

IRAQ HAS NO INCENTIVE FOR THE US TO LEAVE! "WHY BUY THE COW WHEN YOU ARE GETTING THE MILK FOR FREE!" IRAQ's infrastructure is being rebuilt with BILLION$ of US Tax Dollars & their security is being provided by US Soldiers ... Why should they "Stand Up" so the US can "Stand Down" ... Bush gave the Iraqi's a timeline ... WHEN THEY STAND UP ... Again, why should they???? DEMOCRATIC LEADERS NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION!!!!

"MISERABLE FAILURE" ... enough said. It's really really sad that "enough" US voters put this loser in office AGAIN!! CHRIST ALMIGHTY!!!!

Bush lied, there was no connection between hussein and 9/11. Get over it!!! I'm a liberal democrat and I'm just as tired of hearing the president link hussein and 9/11 as I am of hearing the democrats ask for a better explanation of why we are there in the first place. Move on!!! I think most people are sick of the rhetoric coming out of both the RNC and the DNC so lets be the first to move on.

What about cornering Bush on how he insists on promoting a 'fair and equal' political and police system on Irag and yet detainees in our own army bases are degraded and denied the freedom to practice their religion on a daily basis. Bush is the biggest hypocrit politics has seen in decades and he gets away with it becuase no one calls him on it.

Arguing about the justification for Iraq was clearly not enough to win us the 2004 election it isn't going to be enough to sway minds now. Move on!!!

What about talking about how Bush won the election by striking fear in the heart of America over gay marriage and we haven't seen any actions on that subject.

Change your message or we won't be changing any minds in upcoming mid-term elections.

We have to change politics at the local level - Democratic success at the local level is key to ultimately taking back our nation and ending this crap. I want to refer Democratic activists to a great group that is setting up key infrastructure for the Democratic Party. MyDemocraticParty.com is run by a Dem nonprofit, and it offers tools for strategy, media, membership, etc. They do charge groups to help develop the site and keep it online, but it's well worth it. Sixty five groups are using the website/software, including our college group, and I know that there are chapters outside of California that have signed on. I seriously think that this site is the future of local politics. Check it out!

IMPEACH INDICT IMPRISON. This should be repeated ever time Iraq is mentions. What could be worse that our government sacrificing our troops and Iraqi
citizens on his war based on lies.

Where does Bush think these wounded troops go after they are discharge from the military.I will have to tell him over an over again its the V.A. But what does this person do cuts the V.A. budget were we now know its 1.5 bil. short.So much about careing for the troops.

I understand Karl Rove is going to have a fund raiser here in Nebraska shortly.
He recently made a pandering hate comment at a prior fund raiser. That in which he spoke of "liberals(democrats) prepared for therapy after 9/11". I understand this is rhetoric in raising dollars. Yet, demeaning stereo typing a group because of idealogy is not dignified.
I feel he should appoligize for that comment while in Nebraska. Their is nothing I myself can do to address this on his level of public power. Below are 5 reasons Mr. Rove should appoligize...
1)
Parents (being liberal/democrat) who seek reason to their child killed in battle in Iraq see no comfort in what Rove stated.
2)
Not all of the military are conservative republican. 3)
What of the soldier (liberal/democat) that lays in a V.A. hospital with no leg from a road side bomb?
4)
How does this rhetoric effect morale of the soldier just preparing to go on patrol on the Iraqi street that happens to be liberal/democrat?
5)
I happen to be more moderate so at times I have conservative as well as liberal tendencies. I served the military for 12 yrs. I fought in Desert Storm. There are others who fought for their country as me, that Mr. Rove seems to demean. He needs to be more on target with his demonizing rhetoric. Stereotyping as he did leads me to believe he addresses (insults) me. As I said, I served for 12 yrs, fought a war amoung other military services and I did not after 9/11 prepare for therapy. How did Mr Rove prepare for war after 9/11 when he chose " not " to serve his country via military ( run to Colin Powell), as our V.P. Chaney said when asked," He had other more important things to do", when his chance to serve,protect, prepare faced him. Was it 5 deferments? I do not desire to sound as a radical something or another. If Mr Rove would hold down the demonizing rhetoric insults, his hypocrocies and the dividing, stereotyping ego hate speech. Perhaps some meaningful dialogue will help the U.S. position in this world for time to come. Mr Rove and GOP need to just stop. Their contracted media mouth pieces as O Rielly, Hannity, Ingrahm, savage, Borts, and Rush, not one served in the military!. Oh yes, Rush who daily, criticized of Pres. Clinton's lack of military service While he did not serve his country when he had the chance. Rush who praises Pres Bush's military service when Bush during a time of actual war. Was excused from his duty to work of Dads pals campaign (Bush had the nerve to ask for excusal during this time of war while soldiers were dying, and recieved the excusal? You think Rove served in the military. How about Mr Rumsfeld's duty to country? When Colin Powell left the Administration, the only one I could think of who would know how to prepare for war in the Administration is gone.
Mr Rove an appology is in order.....Robt.

first of all, bush is doing everything he can to fix the mess that clinton caused. you may not remember, but anyone who pays attention to politics more than to complain about what is wrong would know the terrorism problems first started when clinton was still in office. how can you blame bush for that? second of all, the people of the united states elected him into office, not just a few of them, so apparently he has more supporters than just me. bush is a great president, and has done everything he can to keep our nation great and safe.