Tech Support Guy banner
  • Please post in our Community Feedback thread for help with the new forum software! If you are having trouble logging in, please Contact Us for assistance.
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,451 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Below is an article from the WP.
He says in part:
President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Well cutting to the chase, Saddam was last elected in Oct 2002 (http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/16/iraqdecl.html ).
Following Bushian logic how can we not allow that Saddam had his accountability moment in that election.
I will leave it to others to find the dates of the last elections for say Pinochet, Milasovitch and good ole Herrr Stickelgruber.

Nixon was elected after watergate. Sooo
Clinton was elected after Whitewater

What about the Abu guys why weren't they vindicated. What about the stuff yet to come from Gitmo are they vindicated.
When does an election overrule individual responsibility
What if say Judas has gotten elected for something?

et cetera et cetera et cetera as Yul said so well

washingtonpost.com
Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy
No U.S. Troop Withdrawal Date Is Set
By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page A01

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. Bush said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed.

In a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans for both foreign and domestic policy. For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization.

Bush was relaxed, often direct and occasionally expansive when discussing his second-term agenda, Iraq and lessons he has learned as president. Sitting at the head of a long conference table in a cabin at the front of the presidential plane, Bush wore a blue Air Force One flight jacket with a red tie and crisp white shirt. Three aides, including his new communications adviser, Nicolle Devenish, accompanied him.

With his inauguration days away, Bush defended the administration's decision to force the District of Columbia to spend $12 million of its homeland security budget to provide tighter security for this week's festivities. He also warned that the ceremony could make the city "an attractive target for terrorists."

"By providing security, hopefully that will provide comfort to people who are coming from all around the country to come and stay in the hotels in Washington and to be able to watch the different festivities in Washington, and eat the food in Washington," Bush said. "I think it provides them great comfort to know that all levels of government are working closely to make this event as secure as possible."

The president's inaugural speech Thursday will focus on his vision for spreading democracy around the world, one of his top foreign policy goals for the new term. But it will be Iraq that dominates White House deliberations off stage. Over the next two weeks, Bush will be monitoring closely Iraq's plan to hold elections for a 275-member national assembly. He must also deliver his State of the Union address with a message of resolve on Iraq, and he will need to seek congressional approval for about $100 billion in emergency spending, much of it for the war.

In the interview, the president urged Americans to show patience as Iraq moves slowly toward creating a democratic nation where a dictatorship once stood. But the relentless optimism that dominated Bush's speeches before the U.S. election was sometimes replaced by pragmatism and caution.

"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said. "I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. . . . I am more patient than some."

Last week, Powell said U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, but Bush said it is premature to judge how many U.S. men and women will be needed to defeat the insurgency and plant a new and sustainable government. He also declined to pledge to significantly reduce U.S. troop levels before the end of his second term in January 2009.

"The sooner the Iraqis are . . . better prepared, better equipped to fight, the sooner our troops can start coming home," he said. Bush did rule out asking Congress to increase the size of the National Guard and regular army, as many lawmakers, including the president's 2004 opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), are urging. "What we're going to do is make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the reserves closely dovetail with active army units, so that the pressure . . . is eased."

A new report released last week by U.S. intelligence agencies warned that the war in Iraq has created a training ground for terrorists. Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen. And I agree. If we are not diligent and firm, there will be parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that."

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding." While some terrorism experts complain U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, could do more to help capture the al Qaeda leader, Bush said he could not name a single U.S. ally that is not doing everything possible to assist U.S. efforts.

"I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased he's isolated," Bush said. "I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be."

Bush acknowledged that the United States' standing has diminished in some parts of the world and said he has asked Condoleezza Rice, his nominee to replace Powell at the State Department, to embark on a public diplomacy campaign that "explains our motives and explains our intentions."

Bush acknowledged that "some of the decisions I've made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world," but predicted that most Muslims will eventually see America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.

"There's no question we've got to continue to do a better job of explaining what America is all about," he said.

On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture. Groups such as the Family Research Council have made the marriage amendment their top priority for the next four years.

The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."

Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes need to pass the amendment in the Senate.

Yesterday morning, the day after the interview, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called to say the president wished to clarify his position, saying Bush was "willing to spend political capital" but believes it will be virtually impossible to overcome Senate resistance until the courts render a verdict on DOMA.

On the subject of revamping Social Security, Bush said he has no intention of making changes that would affect the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who receive disability or survivor benefits. The Bush administration has privately told Republicans that the White House plan to restructure Social Security will include a reduction in benefits for future retirees. The interview marked the first time Bush strongly suggested disability and survivor benefits would be shielded.

"Frankly, our discussions in terms of reform have not centered on the survivor-disability aspect of Social Security," Bush said. "We're talking about the retirement system of Social Security."

Bush has put an overhaul of Social Security at the top of his domestic priorities. He has revealed few details of his reform proposal, except to say he wants to enable young workers to voluntarily divert a portion of their taxes to private accounts. Program participants could then pass the accounts to their heirs.

Bush said it is imperative that the White House and Congress deal with the "baby boomer bulge" that is threatening the long-term solvency of Medicare as well. Medicare faces the same demographic crunch imperiling Social Security in coming decades, as the population grows older and more money is taken out of the system to pay benefits than is put in by younger Americans funding it. Many lawmakers and policy experts say Medicare is in much bigger trouble than Social Security because of skyrocketing health care costs and the added expense of the prescription drug benefit signed into law by Bush in his first term.

"The difference, of course, is that in Medicare, we began a reform system [in the first term] that hopefully will take some of the pressures off" the system by preventing illnesses and streamlining the program, he said. Social Security and Medicare trustees estimate that the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan will top $8 trillion by 2075 -- more than twice the projected shortfall in Social Security.

On the election Bush said he was puzzled that he received only about 11 percent of the black vote, according to exit polls, about a 2 percentage point increase over his 2000 total.

"I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president," Bush said. "It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,953 Posts
PL,

While I think it a rather asinine statement for him to make, your extrapolations to say, Saddam, don't quite fit. Saddam was "elected" in the loose sense. Unlike Saddam's last election, Bush didn't have Kerry or Lieberman killed, nor was their a very real fear of death for those of us who did not vote for him.

I don't think that winning the election means everything is OK, but on the other hand, does it surprise you that he may think that the majority of the population feels that, with the information known up to and including election day, his personal role in Iraq was "ok"?

For me, I think it was more a statement of domestic issues and concern over having someone else finish the job, but that's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
poochee said:
The Bush brain-washing continues. :down:
Yeah, he uses the schools, newspapers and network television to brain-wash us. Oops, sorry, the liberals control all that propaganda machinery. Get your facts straight. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Protesters Plan to Mark Bush Inauguration good for tham :up:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Protesters will march through Washington, stage a "die in" across from the White House and turn their backs on President Bush (news - web sites)'s limousine during his inaugural celebration next week, organizers said on Wednesday.

As U.S. authorities prepared unprecedented security for the Jan. 20 event, organizers said thousands of protesters will stage a noisy counterpoint to the lavish $40 million celebration.

One group of anti-war activists said it would carry 1,000 coffins to the White House and stage a "die in" to protest the lives lost in Iraq (news - web sites).

Another group said it had obtained a permit to protest along a 200-foot (60-meter) section of the parade route but planned to sue for more access to the large sections of Pennsylvania Avenue set aside for Bush supporters.

"The Bush administration, in conjunction with the National Park Service, is trying to stage-manage democracy," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer for the anti-war group International ANSWER.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Secret Service, which is overseeing security for the event, declined immediate comment.

U.S. authorities plan to involve thousands of police, troops and bomb-sniffing dogs in the first inaugural event since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Spectators will pass through metal detectors before attending any inaugural events or watching the parade from the street.

Organizers said the protests were to express opposition to a range of Bush policies, from the war in Iraq to economic programs.

"We're facing a right-wing future that has no sympathy for the concerns of black people and the poor in this country," said Shazza Nzingha, founder of the National Alliance of Black Panthers.

One organization called Turn Your Back on Bush wants people to stake out spots along the parade route and turn their backs on Bush's limousine when it rolls by.

"There are a lot of people who feel Bush has turned his back on them," said field director Sarah Kauffman, who said she is expecting busloads of participants from across the country.

In a separate event, black-clad anarchists will wave puppets and beat drums to protest capitalism and organized government, said Lila Kaye of Anarchist Resistance.

Bush's inauguration plans have also drawn protest from the District of Columbia government, which says its security costs for the event should not come out of its Homeland Security budget.

"We the people of Washington, D.C., rejected Bush by over 90 percent (in the last election)," said Washington resident Nancy Shia. "Maybe this is our punishment."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,816 Posts
The lethal combination of fear and propoganda resulted in the Bush victory. Hopefully we will make progress with both the feat and the propoganda--early polls seem to say so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
------------------------------------------------------
An "accountability moment"?
This has to be the stupidest statement GW has made thus far.
As if accountability stops with election.
People who buy into these "explanations" of what has happened have to be blindly loyal, or possess a childlike ability to accept stories that are not even rational.
As to the American people listening to assessments--- I listened to why we needed to invade {WMD}---how we would be greeted---and how we have progressed. These assessments have all proved false. Bush can blame intel, or whomever he wishes, but the buck still stops with him.
Maybe his upbringing has taught him to dismiss responsibilty, accountablility? :confused:

Mr Bush simply cannot dodge accountability for the deaths , injury, and damage caused by this invasion---ever.
He will be accountable for failure of this operation, should it fail, regardless of his statement. Credit and glory, or blame and shame--belong to him. :mad: >f
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
linskyjack said:
The lethal combination of fear and propoganda resulted in the Bush victory. Hopefully we will make progress with both the feat and the propoganda--early polls seem to say so.
Yeah, they said there would be a re-instatement of the draft if Kerry were elected, and that he would take away seniors social security, and re-instate slavery. Oops, that was the demo-gog-crats screaming fear and propoganda.

It is so much fun "debating" facts with liberals who have none. :D
 

·
Moderator (deceased) Gone but never forgotten
Joined
·
47,973 Posts
rawmeat said:
Yeah, they said there would be a re-instatement of the draft if Kerry were elected, and that he would take away seniors social security, and re-instate slavery. Oops, that was the demo-gog-crats screaming fear and propoganda.

It is so much fun "debating" facts with liberals who have none. :D
WHat you call "debating" is more like playground name calling! :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,816 Posts
rawmeat said:
Yeah, they said there would be a re-instatement of the draft if Kerry were elected, and that he would take away seniors social security, and re-instate slavery. Oops, that was the demo-gog-crats screaming fear and propoganda.

It is so much fun "debating" facts with liberals who have none. :D
Grow up young man. In your attempt to repeat the contents of the Rush Limbaugh show, you made a major mistake---I know of no reference to Bush reinstating slavery made by any Democrat during the campaign. The only slaves I know of are the pea-brain right wing fundamentalist whackos who goose step along with the man. As far as SS and the Draft goes--well its hardly a week since his innauguration! Give the monkey some time!
 

·
Moderator (deceased) Gone but never forgotten
Joined
·
47,973 Posts
linskyjack said:
Grow up young man. In your attempt to repeat the contents of the Rush Limbaugh show, you made a major mistake---I know of no reference to Bush reinstating slavery made by any Democrat during the campaign. The only slaves I know of are the pea-brain right wing fundamentalist whackos who goose step along with the man. As far as SS and the Draft goes--well its hardly a week since his innauguration! Give the monkey some time!
:up:
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
55,854 Posts
rawmeat said:
Yeah, he uses the schools, newspapers and network television to brain-wash us. Oops, sorry, the liberals control all that propaganda machinery. Get your facts straight. :D
You're absolutely correct, raw.

And congratulations on our upcoming 1000th post at TSG. :up:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
55,854 Posts
rawmeat said:
Yeah, they said there would be a re-instatement of the draft if Kerry were elected, and that he would take away seniors social security, and re-instate slavery. Oops, that was the demo-gog-crats screaming fear and propoganda.

It is so much fun "debating" facts with liberals who have none. :D
And don't forget, women were going to be legally raped. (quote by a Cameron Diaz on Oprah)
I believe she also mentioned the return of the practice of lynching.
... and that early term abortion would no longer be legal too. :rolleyes:
... Oh, and the Earth would burn up. :rolleyes:
 

·
Moderator (deceased) Gone but never forgotten
Joined
·
47,973 Posts
LANMaster said:
You're absolutely correct, raw.

And congratulations on our upcoming 1000th post at TSG. :up:
News break! Little Nipper took over Lan's brain! :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,439 Posts
Yeah - and while all this is going on, what's happening in the opposition? How is that 'opposition' undermining its own support base so you might as well hold the door open for all the other stuff to happen. "Solidarity" was more than just a cool logo on a T-shirt. It meant something else too. But then we're talking about an organisation in a country where no-one took anything for granted and you could be arrested for calling Jarulzelski names in a cafe. Here? The 'opposition'? and the incumbant - at times don't seem to be much better than each other, and while this situation prevails the same old c*** will continue..........Y'know, the world burns in international incumbant party instigated wars, the global constitutional 'oppositions'? disappear up their own flabby cliqueism, and 6 billion people ask what the hell is happening to their planet.

Currently reading "Open letters" by Vaclav Havel by the way.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top