Saturday, November 12, 2005

It's about time.

Mr. President, what took you so long? You should have come out swinging a long time ago. I guess it's better late than never.
These highlights of your speech say it clearly:

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."


So, 100 House and Senate Democrats also agreed to remove Saddam Hussein. Funny, but I did not see that reported with the same intensity and consistency as the "Bush lied" accounts. As a matter of fact, I did not see it reported at all with the exception of a few conservative bloggers and few, if any, MSM reports.
The far left Democrats still don't get it or just refuse to get it. It's a Global War on Terror and the US has its troops on the front lines of this conflict. Islamic radicalism is attacking our way of life! It's more than just politics as usual.
I understand how political capital is created on both sides of the partisan divide by the use of the news media. A news media that has as much restraint as a flea sizing up a dog's back.
However, when facts about how the decisions to go to war are distorted by the far left in such a way as to undermine the government's efforts, it's behavior that borders on insanity. Repeating the same false and scurrilous accusations over and over and over using every possible media outlet and hoping that they will "stick" is disturbingly obvious. It's sad and discouraging to find that many mainstream Democrats are "going along" with this tactic. This kind of outrageous finger-pointing partisanship can only strengthen the terrorists' resolve as they sense chaos and confusion on our homefront.
Let's hope that all the dramatis personae of this crisis will find their way back to more altruistic endeavors instead of the narrow and self-indulgent groupthink that is being offered as a benefit to the public good.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think we need a new president instead of Bush. He's helpin but not dat much... But he's ok... ;-) PEACE

roman said...

quz boss,
Thank you for stopping by my site.
Yes, Bush has'nt shown much "life"
lately. I don't know if it's because he is being hammered by the press or is just "worn out".
He is starting to look like Clinton just before he left office.
Just plain "worn out".
I guess the constant stress of office ages a person at an accelerated rate.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it is stress, its takin care of da world!!! N besides da fact thurrz warz goin on...
N thnkz for da puppy complimentz ;-) PEACE

Anonymous said...

Hey roman, maybe bush ain't doin' so hot because he's not relying on the "VP for Torture" to prop his sorry butt up!

roman said...

anonymous,
We've got brutal sadistic killers like Al-Zarqawi running around lobbing the heads off our countrymen and killing our soldiers and all you have to say is that Cheney is "VP of Torture"?
Your set of priorities and focus, like so many left-wingers, are somewhat "off" in my opinion. We're supposed to be on the same side but like so many far-left partisan Bush haters, you would rather knock your own government than focus on the real issues confronting us.
But,hey, drop in and comment on my posts anytime. I'm glad you at least get to see an opposing point of view from time to time. You're always welcome.

Anonymous said...

Hey, why was u blushin? U left dat in my blog ;-) PEACE

roman said...

quz boss,
It's most likely the rose that's in the illustration.;-)

Anonymous said...

oh... lol, I thought it looked vuury cute ;-) PEACE

NeoGex said...

"So, 100 House and Senate Democrats also agreed to remove Saddam Hussein. Funny, but I did not see that reported with the same intensity and consistency as the "Bush lied" accounts. As a matter of fact, I did not see it reported at all with the exception of a few conservative bloggers and few, if any, MSM reports."

Your whole premise there is not credible. Why? You took Bush's word that 100 Democrats voted for the war and Bush is by in no means a credible source of information as seen with the numerous controversies has had these days. Therefore, Bush's word is not credible therefore you cannot believe what he says to be true.

And if those 100 Democrats did vote for the war, that means that they made a stupid mistake. However, that still does not prove that this War in Iraq is justified because it is not by in no means. I mean they invaded Iraq based off a mere speculation not actual evidence and thus ruined the lives of many innocent Iraqis and took away many soldier's lives. Also, its the fact that they switched to the correct side of against the war which makes them ultimately better than conservatives themselves.

"It's a Global War on Terror and the US has its troops on the front lines of this conflict."

Global? Since when was it Global? More like in Iraq only. And War on Terror? More like Bush was trying to get his greedy hands on oil and looking for nukes, which he never found. Also, Iraq had almost no power to do anything. Remember, The U.S had put sanctions on Iraq in the first place. They were in a terrible state in the first place because of these sanctions so its completly impossible for Iraq to cause any trouble.

"Islamic radicalism is attacking our way of life!"

That is just plain wrong in all aspects of it. How is Islam attacking our way of life? I mean we are like over a 1,000 miles away from them!!! Islam is only existing in the Middle East and it remains in those countries. Its not like theyve been running to other people's houses and forcing them to convert. Stop using cliched statements.

"You should have come out swinging a long time ago. I guess it's better late than never."

Bush: Uhh duh duhd udhdhudh, I and my cabinet coulnt thkink of anythinkg untilfsd now!!! LOLZ!!!

roman said...

Neogex,
It's global because there have been attacks around the globe. I guess you missed the killings carried out in Yemen, Bali, Egypt, England, Spain, USA, Russia, Netherlands and three countries in Africa. This is not to mention the ones that were stopped by intelligence agencies in Germany and Italy. Yeah, I'd say its global.
OK, I suppose I'm going to have to find sources for the 100 Democrats who voted for the war. I will find the sources. I don't think Bush would lie about that because it would be pounced on by every newspaper and TV reporter so it must be verifiable.
I think that Bush just rubs many people the wrong way. His mannerisms like that of a "cowboy" with that Texas swagger and constant smirk. Try too look beyond that. We should not "judge a book by its cover", so to speak.

1:18 PM

NeoGex said...

Oops, I didnt know those other countries were attacked.

"I don't think Bush would lie about that because it would be pounced on by every newspaper and TV reporter so it must be verifiable."

That would have been true and credible if it was not for the fact that the news media are, unlike popular belief, conservative media. Even though people like Bill O Reilly and Sean Hannity claim that the media is liberal, you will find that mostly everyone is conservative.

"We should not "judge a book by its cover", so to speak."

I did not judge him by his cover. Infact, I even wanted to vote for him during the 2000 election. It was only after all his retarded statements and idiotic things that he had done that I knew that he was a moron. I mean who the hell pluralizes internet? Bush does.