Posted by Mark Silva at 1:17 pm CDT
At the start of a critical fall campaign in which Republicans are running as the party that will protect Americans from terrrorism, President Bush and leaders of his own party are sharply split over the interrogation and trials of detainees accused of attacks against Americans.
The president, calling a Rose Garden press conference today to press his case for legislation enabling his administration to interrogate and try accused terrorists, angrily complained that if the Congress will not give him that authority, the government’s interrogation of prisoners must stop.
(President Bush at White House Rose Garden news conference. Photo by Chuck Kennedy/MCT)
The president’s dispute with a Republican-run Senate weeks before fall adjournment and less than two months from elections in which partisan control of Congress is at stake could undermine Bush’s argument that his party is best-suited to avert another terrorist attack against the U.S. \
“This enemy has struck us, and they want to strike us again,’’ Bush said at his hour-long news conference, mounting an impassioned defense of his policies and forceful challenge of critics.
“We’ll give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country,’’ an adamant president said. “That’s our job. It’s a dangerous world. I wish it wasn’t that way. I wish I could tell the American people, ‘Don’t worry about it. They’re not coming again.’ But they are coming again.’’
Powerful Republican senators and dozens of retired senior military officers are complaining that the Bush administration’s attempts to define what is cruel treatment of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention could subject American military forces to unchecked torture in captivity abroad if other governments also are allowed to interpret the convention on their own.
Retired Gen. Colin Powell, a four-star general who served as secretary of state for Bush and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has openly challenged the administration’s attempts to define what is “humiliating and degrading treatment’’ under the Geneva Convention, stating in a letter this week: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.’’
Bush maintains that the U.S. is facing an unprecedented enemy in the war on terror, operatives of al Qaeda and other groups that abide by no traditional conventions of war.
“If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, that’s flawed -- flawed logic,’’ Bush said today. “It’s just -- just -- I -- I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children and -- to achieve an objective.’’
Twice this week, the president has turned to a powerful prop for messages about combatting terrorism aimed at a national television audience – with an Oval Office address on Monday night, the anniversary of 9/11, which he devoted to framing the war in Iraq as central to the war against terrorism, and with his appearance outside the Oval Office today, in a Rose Garden news conference consumed with his defense of the detainee interrogations and trials.
This also marked the 16th day in a series of high profile appearances, starting with the president’s address to the American Legion in Salt Lake City on Aug. 31, in which he has attempted to define the war on terror as the “ideological struggle of the 21st Century’’ and the war in Iraq as the central theater in that struggle.
But Bush maintains that U.S. intelligence officers cannot proceed with the “tough’’ interrogations of the 14 men accused of planning the attacks of Sept. 11 and other attacks against Americans abroad that the Central Intelligence Agency recently delivered to the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center unless the rules of interrogation are clarified for them.
The Supreme Court in June demanded congressional approval for any military trials of these detainees as well as demanding that they are treated according to the Geneva Convention.
“The point I just made is the most important point,’’ the president said, in a heated reply to a reporter’s question about the impact that the administration’s policy could have on other countries’ treatment of American prisoners. “The point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law… The bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules -- if they do not do that -- the program’s not going forward.’’
With the interrogation and trials of accused terrorists stalled amidst a dispute among the White House and GOP congressional leaders, the party could face a more difficult challenge in pressing a case that it is making to voters in congressional districts across the country.
That case was spelled out today in an email to supporters from Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman: “It’s more than just the House, the Senate, and 36 governorships’’ at stake in this fall’s elections.
“It’s whether the president’s efforts to keep Americans safe will grind to a halt with Democrats in control of funding every aspect of the War on Terror... whether Democrats will be allowed to carry out their threat to raise your taxes by $2.4 trillion... whether Democrats will get their wish of investigating - and maybe even impeaching - our president. ‘’
Mehlman, at a breakfast meeting with Washington reporters today, attempted to downplay the divisions among Republican leaders that are stalling both the president’s interrogation and military trial legislation for detainees.
"The average American is not paying attention to committee markups’’ of legislation, Mehlman said. "What they’re going to do is look at the overall, and when they look at the overall, they’ll recognize that Republicans are united.
“I am hopeful and confident that the president is going to be able to have the kind of program he talked about,’’ said Mehlman, maintaing \that the U.S. would be more vulnerable “if Democratic leaders were in charge and had their way.’’
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested this week that Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than in protecting the American people – a statement that a White House spokesman rejected earlier this week. Bush was asked if he agrees, or considers this “the right tone’’ to set for the fall campaign.
“Hmm,’’ said Bush. “I wouldn’t have exactly put in that way. But I do believe there’s a difference of attitude -- I mean, take the Patriot Act, for example,’’ he said, alluding to Democratic opposition to initial passage and then extension of the act. “There was a healthy debate and we finally got the Patriot Act extended, after it was passed right after 9/11. To me it was an indication of just a difference of approach.
“I don’t question the patriotism of somebody who doesn’t agree with me. I just don’t,’’ Bush said. “And I think it’s unwise to do that. I don’t think that’s what leaders do. I do think that -- I think that there is a difference of opinion here in Washington about the tools necessary to protect the country.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Mr. President, the tools you speak of are too high priced. Fear-mongering the American people seems to be the only thing Republicans can run on. I think Bush knows that after November the party’s over. He needs the blessing from Congress for changes in the statutes of the Geneva Convention, in order to avoid the real possibility that him, Dicky, and Rummy, can be put on trial for war crimes.
Posted by: Rory M | September 15, 2006 2:39 PM
"Fear-mongering the American people seems to be the only thing Republicans can run on."
Aren't the Democrats going around saying that we are less safe now, than before 9/11?
Does that scare too? The terrorist threat Bush speaks of has been verified to be true (9/11, Millenium Plot, 93 WTC Bombing etc....)
Whether or not we are "less" safe is not verifiable, and arguably not true due to the fact that in 5 years, we have not been attacked on the scale of 9/11
So, I'll ask again....who is fear mongering?
Posted by: JD | September 15, 2006 3:47 PM
“I don’t question the patriotism of somebody who doesn’t agree with me. I just don’t,’’ Bush said. “And I think it’s unwise to do that. I don’t think that’s what leaders do. I do think that -- I think that there is a difference of opinion here in Washington about the tools necessary to protect the country.’’
What other a pile of stink can the duplicitous President utter?
Someone remind him what he and his minions have been doing the last three weeks.
Posted by: johnf | September 15, 2006 3:58 PM
I'd also love to know what Hillary and John Kerry mean about fighting a more "thoughtful" war.
Posted by: JD | September 15, 2006 3:59 PM
JD,
The party that says we are in the struggle of the 21st century but is relying on a fledgeling Iraqi government and Iraqi army to take over the fight. If it really is the struggle of the 21st century, why aren't we sending more of the best equiped and most skilled troops over there?
Posted by: Janet | September 15, 2006 4:00 PM
JD desagree here eight years it took for the terrotist to hit us again. And when they did for two years the Republican Congress had control and did stop all of Clinton's terror bills that a fact they called them Wag the Dog. Both Democrats and Republicans failed to stop the attack. As to this Country being safer no way. Not one Bill has passed that secures our broders,train ,buses,nuck and chem plants. That is how to secure America not by taken our rights away.
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 15, 2006 4:11 PM
J John D,
What's your induction date?
Or are you all cluck and no action?
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 15, 2006 4:11 PM
OK JD, so by your logic we were at our safest in 2000 because we were NEVER attacked before on our home turf?
You're arguement is weak. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean there isn't planning going on. It took them 8 years to plan 9/11.
And it is the GOP who is fear mongering, the Dem's aren't saying "a vote for them is like a vote for the al qaida types." But your VP is. Even Snow is bashing Colin Powell and then had to apologize for his remarks.
If you're so confident in the way things are being handled now, sign on up buddy!
Posted by: G | September 15, 2006 4:54 PM
The question here is not whether actions such as more forceful interrogation of terror suspects would provide more information. The question is how many lives our principles are worth. The words "slippery slope" are bandied about far too often, but they do apply here. Say that the President gets his way, and interrogators are allowed to do things not approved of in the Geneva Convention. Is it possible that such tactics would yield results? Certainly. And this is where it gets tricky. Are the lives of dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of people worth the betrayal of our morals?
Everything was so much easier when we didn't know how our government did its work. Orwell once said that, "We sleep easily in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." And, taken in abstract terms, we were okay with that. But now we do know, and it's no longer abstract. And we have come to the hardest part of being Americans, deciding for ourselves what our safety is worth.
Posted by: Ana | September 15, 2006 5:12 PM
It appears he is having a hissy fit over this. He's not getting his way so he wants to take his ball and go home.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | September 15, 2006 5:13 PM
This headline is inaccurate. The debate is not over 'terror,' but instead about torture ... done in our names.
Let all our soldiers thank God for men like McCain and Graham. For us to commit torture makes it more likely they will have to endure it when captured.
Posted by: Chad Steacy | September 15, 2006 5:15 PM
JD says "So, I'll ask again....who is fear mongering?" EVERYBODY! We have turned into a massive colony of fat bed wetting fools. If your waiting around for some politician to make you save your screwed. Just look at the gulf coast or look at those who helped in New York after the buildings fell.The bogeyman is bringing in money for both sides of the political isle. The state of fear helps this paper sell more papers, TV rating, radio ratings, church ratings, Beer sales,heroin sales. Scared go to the mall. What did the decider tell us to do? GO TO THE MALL. I'm sick of political parties saying they can make me safe. Does anybody believe that crap? What has happen to us? Why are we letting stuffed shirt politicians control us? Now damn it I'm on my to bolster hard liquor sales in the name of fear.
Posted by: Mudbug | September 15, 2006 5:20 PM
I wish everyone could see the last ten minutes of the move "American President" with Michael Douglas.
I don't remember the exact words, but when he speaks of the Bush-like character in the movie his comments are something to the effect:'He wants you to believe in things that will scare you, in order to keep power and he can't sell it.'
Posted by: Joseph Dempsey | September 15, 2006 5:22 PM
JD is a troll. Don't feed him. He purposely uses logical fallacies (like that priceless example of begging the question with the "aren't we more safe since there hasn't been another attack since 9/11" idea) as though they were actually reasonable arguments and uses lies as evidence. It's the only way to explain the absolutely transparent idiocy of every single post by him.
Posted by: etheryang | September 15, 2006 5:58 PM
In reference to President Bush and his request to over ride the Geneva Convention this constituent votes absolutely NO. Please do NOT give this administration any such power. All you should be giving them is laser focused OVERSITE. They lied to us about going into Iraq and have been lying to the American people ever since. I don’t trust them and I believe they are a bunch of incompetent, arrogant, blood thirsty idiots. They should be sent to Bagdad for the duration of this president’s term and made to live in the hell they created there.
Posted by: Victor Moss | September 15, 2006 7:51 PM
Letter to the editor,
President Bush and his extreme right-wing apologists defend the use of extreme interrogation methods (torture if you please) by wheeling out a straw man. This is an evil-doer terrorist that has secret knowledge that if forced from him (they are not yet prepared to say “her”) will save millions upon millions of our fellow citizen from a horrible death from some catastrophically destructive act.
I propose a simple solution to this hypothetical situation (“hypothetical” being the word that President Bush used in his press conference to disparage any probing questions). Congress should enact a law that, in the above suggested situation, authorizes the president to sanction the use of any means, torture included, to secure information that will save the day---so to speak.
To ensure that it is only used in such a situation, the law should further state that after such torture has been administered, it will be the responsibility of the president to demonstrate---beyond a shadow of a doubt---that millions of lives have indeed been saved because he has authorized this kind of treatment of a human being.
The law should further provide that if the president is unable to provide such proof, he and his most trusted advisors will be subjected to the exact same methods and duration of torture that has been used on the suspected terrorist. You know, sort of an eye for an eye.
Since President Bush is so courageously certain about the saving value of “necessary” means, I am certain he will agree to this compromise.
Sam Osborne
Box 147
West Branch, IA 52358
(319) 643-5388
Posted by: Sam Osborne | September 15, 2006 7:54 PM
Growing animated, Bush said, "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
===============
Actually, Bush has killed thousands of innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
That objective has yet to be achieved and likely never will be, I might add.
Posted by: BB | September 15, 2006 9:27 PM
Finally, there are Republicans in Washington with some common sense, though it's too little too late.
It's time to make the country great again. Americans need to get rid of conservatives (the minority that they are)from all levels of government & let them run crying to Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Roman B | September 15, 2006 9:53 PM
Bush said Article 3 was too vague and open to interpretation. That's why military professionals don't want to break the law.
Isn't it just the opposite? Poorly written laws are easy to break and difficult to enforce. The fact is, the Geneva Conventions are clear and well written, educated people comprehend what they read and refuse to break the law. Bush has a hard time with that.
Why does Bush hate our soldiers?
Posted by: Lou Kaye | September 16, 2006 12:37 AM
"The average American is not paying attention ..." quoth Ken Mehlman.
There lies the rub.
Posted by: Figbash | September 16, 2006 6:13 AM
Can this fall's election come soon enough? It's time to start cleaning house in Washington. The present Bush administration has destroyed what we stand for as a country.
The latest argument over Article #3 of the Geneva Convention is a perfect example of how the Bushites have used the threat of another 9/11 attack to scare the American people into believing that its alright to use any and all tactics, including torture, against our enemies.
Thank God we have a few Republicans out there who are starting to wake-up to this nightmare that has been created by the "Fascist" Bushites.
This fall's election may be one of the most important elections before the American people in a while. When you look at the many issues that will be before the voters, its hard to say that any one partiular issue is more important than another.
The Republicans however, are trying to use the threat of terrorism and national security as their main rallying point. They have successfully connected the war in Iraq with the threat of terrorism, and they have convinced many Americans that failure to back the Bushites handling of the war borders on being unpatriotic.
There are many other issues such as the economy; the price of gasoline at the pump; the loss of American jobs to other countries; the huge trade deficit that has cost many middle class Americans their jobs; and the huge national debt that continues to get larger and larger each month. The fact that 50 million people have no health care coverage, and the need for stem cell research are also important issues that may be lost in this fall's political shuffle.
Posted by: Larry Burgess | September 16, 2006 9:52 AM
JD -John D if you please what did we put the Japanese to death for in WW2? We put them to death for torture and muder of our troops.Article three is there in full detail.Changing that article will put our troops in jeopardy. When the Red Cross release's the report from Gitmo we been water boarding that is torture and against the law
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 16, 2006 10:02 AM
Does anyone wonder why this has become such a priority with W? Is it possible he is trying to rewrite article III to retroactively cover war crimes already committed and that he was aware of? I smell impeachment.
And why doesn't anybody point out the endless volumes of studies done that prove torture doesn't work anyway??!!
Posted by: Brian | September 16, 2006 10:43 AM
JD and John D you know I will research and heres some of it.
Clinton sent legislation to allow better tracking of terrorist funding (Defeated by Republican Congress)
Clinton sent legislation to tighten Airport Security (Defeat again by Republicans)
Clinton again sent legislation to track explosives that terrorist use defeated again by you know who.
Now Bush backed off clinton's anti-terroism efforts
Shelved the Hart -Rudman report in terror
The anti-terrorism task force run by Cheney never met before 9/11
Cut anti-terrorism effort by DOD
Had no priority to any anti-terrorism in the Justice Department
Ignored warnings that bin-Lafen was going to attack in NIC report two weeks before 9/11
Halted the Predator drone tracking bin-Laden set up by Clinton
August 6th CIA report said Al-Qaeda was going to hijack airplanes for a attack
And you guys blame Democrats for being anti-terror sham on you
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 16, 2006 2:16 PM
Not really on topic -- not directly anyway; an interesting review of a book about 9/11 Conspiracy theories.
I don't know to whether laugh when I read some of the details of the theories, or to cry when I think of how many people profess to believe this crap.
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060904_132517_132517
(No doubt the author is an FBI stooge)
Posted by: Juanito | September 16, 2006 9:09 PM
Hope this helps, Mr. President:
diplomacy
n 1: negotiation between nations [syn: diplomatic negotiations] 2: subtly skillful handling of a situation [syn: delicacy, discreetness, finesse] 3: wisdom in the management of public affairs [syn: statesmanship, statecraft]
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | September 16, 2006 9:56 PM
There are so many democrats who would have voted for Colin Powell, had he run. Even if I had disagreed with some of Powell's platform I would have at least respected his expertise and wisdom in military matters. I felt the same way about McCain until he started dancing with Jerry Falwell. That's the truth. Instead, here we are. Whatever happens in the republican party, I sincerely hope there will be more balance in the future. But I'm not betting on it.
Posted by: Tom | September 16, 2006 10:04 PM
Never negotiate out of fear.
Never fear to negotiate.
JFK
Posted by: bill r. | September 17, 2006 7:28 AM
Mr.Bush is in a frenzy about this bill because he knows he and his partners in crime have committed war crimes and if congress dosent okay his bill they can be tried and prosecuted for same.Can you imagine Bush and Cheney on trial and being forced to answer questions truthfully?The Red cross will shortly be interveiwing these prisoners recently brought to Gitmo from God knows where and when they tell that they were tortured that's it for the Bushies.Is it any wonder he said time is running out.Time is running out for them.the question now,is,will Graham,Warner and mcCain stick to their guns or will they cave?Stay tuned.
Posted by: cincigal74 | September 17, 2006 1:09 PM
etheryang, Good to see you back. I thought we laughed you off the boards long ago. I'm looking forward to what half baked ideas you have these days.
Dale, Maybe what you posted was true or not, I don't care. I was asking who is fear mongering the left or right.
Nothing you posted had anything to do with my post.
Doug Z. ....too easy, never mind.
G. No I'm not planning on "signing up" . I'm for the war, but don't plan on joining the military. I'm also for fighting crime, but I don't plan on joining the police force. I believe in a strong proactive force to fight fires as well, but I don't plan on becoming a firefighter. I believe in putting tax cheats in jail, but I don't plan on persuing a carreer with the IRS.
If you feel that is the only way I can be legit in my support the Iraq war, I 'll ask if you plan on being a "human shield" to
"consumate" your anti war stance.
Yep...they are still there and are in need of volunteers.
Here you go:
http://p10k.net/humanshieldactiontoiraq.html
http://www.cpt.org/iraq/projectoverview.php
Hey Sean Penn and a 16 year old kid got there, I'm sure you could to.
...or are you a Chicken Dove?
Posted by: JD | September 17, 2006 9:58 PM
"OK JD, so by your logic we were at our safest in 2000 because we were NEVER attacked before on our home turf?"
93 ring a bell?
I'm not saying we are safer or not, Either way, its a debatable point with the only absolute fact being that we have not been attacked at home like 9/11 as of yet.
I was asking who is doing the fear mongering? If you think the Republicans are the only ones, I think you are wrong.
The only person who directly answered was Mudbug, and the only post that had a decent point was Janet.
Do you other guys comprehend what you read?
Posted by: JD | September 17, 2006 10:08 PM
Hey Dale,
The key terms in your post about the Japs in WW2 were "Red cross" and "report"
Think about it.
Get back to me if you can't figure it out.
Posted by: JD | September 17, 2006 10:10 PM
JD...The key terms in your last post was "Japs"
Think about it!
Get back to me if you can't figure it out.
Posted by: bill r. | September 18, 2006 8:07 AM
J John D,
Thank you for finally answering the question.
Men like Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, the Kennedy brothers, my father, my nephew and Dale Peters stood up to be counted.
Have a seat.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 18, 2006 8:22 AM
Clark Gable Jimmy Stewart?
Who are they?
Doug, are you stuck in a time warp? Still time to be a human shield. Stand up and be counted.
cluck cluck.
Wait, I didn't see your name in there Doug? Where were you? 4-F?
Bill R. Japs WW2. Boo freakin hoo. That is what they were referred to as. Look it up. Also, Germans were "jerries" or "Krauts"
Oh, I forgot, your party is worried about how the enemy is referred to. Maybe that is what John Kerry means by fighting a more "thoughful" war.
My point was that they (japs) didn't allow any "red cross" or "reports" in their POW camps. Dale wants to equate Gitmo to their camps.
What a joke, but par for the course on the left.
Posted by: JD | September 18, 2006 9:51 AM
JD...No..you are the people I'm more worried about!
Posted by: bill r. | September 18, 2006 10:44 AM
JD...Since names don't bother you...you are a redneck!
Posted by: bill r. | September 18, 2006 10:46 AM
John McCain, George Herbert Walker Bush, John Kerry, Wesley Clark...
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 18, 2006 10:58 AM
JD Here Red Cross is doing a report on Gitmo we have already been toturing. World War 11 we killed those who used torture against our guys.
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 18, 2006 10:59 AM
So Dale,
Are saying that the interragators at Gitmo should be killed like the Japs in the WW2 prison camp?
Glad you made that clear.
Redneck? Oh , ok. Glad you feel better now Dale.
I call WW2 Japanes POW guards Japs, and you say our guards are the same and should be killed. Glad to see your outrage is directed in the right place.
Doug Z. What will become of your one line anti war argument of "chicken hawk" if John McCain becomes our next president and contiunes with the Iraq war?
Are you going to have to start thinking then?
Posted by: JD | September 18, 2006 11:08 AM
Lets recap:
I posed a simple question on who is fear mongering the right or left.
Some said both, some said only the right.
I think it can be said both are.
The raging left and those stuck in time warps answered in typical left wing fashion:
You are a racist. Why don't you sign up, and finally: We torture in the same scale as the Japs in ww2, and will be put to death.
The Left wing ladies and gentleman.
Posted by: JD | September 18, 2006 11:16 AM
J.D.,
Let's take it from the top.
I mean that, no B.S. When I tell you that my nephew is in Iraq and subject to getting his 24 year old self killed - I'm not exagerrating.
No more chickenhawk. You will never see me post that phrase again - the stakes are way too high for that.
J.D.,
I think we need to leave Iraq under a timeline that that compels the Iraqi' military and police to take control of their own country.
Honest to God, I will appreciate a thoughtful response to this question from you and like minded?
Thank you.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 18, 2006 11:39 AM
JD,
I am of Japanese descent and my grandfather was part of the "government relocation program" in Tule Lake, CA during World War II. The term "Jap" is offensive to all Japanese-American, and I, as well as my grandfather, would not have appreciated you using this term. It's as outdated and antiquated as calling African-Americans the N word. Since you referred to some people as being "stuck in time warps," I would ask that you not be stuck in the 1940's.
Tom
Posted by: TFK | September 18, 2006 11:43 AM
JD...I don't want Dale to get the credit for calling you a redneck...it was me.
Lets take your posts one at a time.
1) Who ever said our guards are the same as the
"Japanese" and should be killed? That exists no where on this thread..ANYWHERE..just in your head.
2) Who is fear mongering? Both sides, however I feel the right uses it more and uses terms like defeat-ocrats and hezb-ocrats to instill that fear in the left.
3) I have served my time in the service in Vietnam...have you?
4) As to a racist...if the shoe fits....
Posted by: bill r. | September 18, 2006 12:05 PM
TFK, sorry.....if it offends you I won't use it. Actually I didn't realize I used the term, but was reading some WW2 history and that term was commonly used. No excuse, just a reason.
Bill R.
Good man for standing up and taking credit (redneck)
If you would have made point #2 from the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of nonsense.
Doug Z. I knew you had it in you to make a good point.
I would tweak a bit and maybe not stick to a "timeline" , but I can see your point of view.
NOW WAS ALL OF THIS SOO HARD?
Posted by: JD | September 18, 2006 3:04 PM
THE WAR TO START (not end) ALL WARS:
Poor leaders will claim that great purpose has been achieved even through a most egregious blunder. They will also try to deflect leftover blame onto anyone but their most sycophantic followers.
Aside from possibly thinking he could one-up his father by deposing Saddam Hussein, with little forethought George W. Bush launched his "pre-emptive" war into Iraq . Now, in words of justification befitting a juvenile delinquent, he passes off this mistaken venture by claiming that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
If a tsunami had swept up the Tigress and Euphrates and gotten Saddam, but in the bargain taken thousands of lives and cost our nation dearly, we might expect Bush to also find great good in the wall of water and take credit for its course.
This man can only lead sheep. To his dwindling flock of followers, have a nice bah, bah, bah.
Sam Osborne
Posted by: Sam Osborne | September 28, 2006 11:13 AM
I can remember when “conservative” meant wisely spending what you have and paying as you go. But this good habit is of little interest to the Neo-cons who now encourage their political lackeys in Congress to make election-time promises that throw money at this and more at that, and never once should these pork-barrel boys say where the money will be coming from. This bad-habit has become the common way of doing business for too many congressional Republicans.
A while back someone said that we have the best Congress that money can buy. That is for sure, and they have bought their jobs with money that we do not have and sold out to folks that have been feeding grandly at the public trough. Anyone ever hear of Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton?
Oh well, it is really not like it is real money, it is just a mortgage on the lives and future of our children and their children, and it also makes it a bit hard if your income is not going up as fast Congress’s income has. How much of a pay increase did these politicians vote themselves, and how big is the national debt?
It is not only time to throw the rascals out, but we also need to be careful who we let into the chicken coop on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Neo-cons and can go and cluck somewhere else, I’m voting to throw their lackeys out of office.
Posted by: Ed Gant | October 8, 2006 5:51 PM