George W. Bush: pivotal campaign speeches?

[jaguar]

judging by all the stuff that's come out since it appears most had doubts about what WMD or what capability they had to use it at best. The fact of the matter is that Bush and Blair are equally guilty of blowing out of all proportion the evidence as it was either with full knowledge they were distorting the truth beyond recognition or not bothering to go back and find out the situation either directly from primary sources or intel services. Both bush and blair are equally guilty of blaming the intel services for their own failings.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Wolf, you are quite correct in your statements. Forest fires which threaten nearby structures need to be agressively contained (although a Conservative might make a statement to the effect that if people chose to build homes near national forests, they should accept the consequences of any subsequent forest fire and not expect the government to bail them out for their lack of foresight ).

Yes..yes!! Now you're getting it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

what serious intelligence service believed that they had no WMD - at THAT time?

Totally irrelevant to the bottom line what they believed. No WMDs could be found - because none existed. Furthermore when real intelligent people complained the president was misrepresenting the facts, the were told and I quote, "The fix is in".

The Tony Blair speech lies by misrepresenting facts. UN defanged Saddam by 1996. In fact, every honest American can thank the UN for doing their job. Due to UN success, there were no massive American casulties in 1993. UN did its job. Therefore thousands - and maybe tens of thousands of Americans did not die in Iraq. Simple fact that the Tony Blair speech intentionally distorts - to promote a lie.

And he must lie because he started lying when he 'sexed up' the threat. Liars must lie more to coverup their lies.

Saddam was not a threat to America as any intelligent American now knows. Saddam was a diminishing threat even to everyone in the region. This from American generals before we Pearl Harbored Iraq. Thank you president Tojo for not thanking UNSCOM. Thank you Tony Blair for lying so you don't have to admit you were lying previously.

[tw]

Originally Posted by jaguar

The fact of the matter is that Bush and Blair are equally guilty of blowing out of all proportion the evidence as it was ... Both bush and blair are equally guilty of blaming the intel services for their own failings.

Deja Vue. The same people who believed lies about aluminum tubes are being lies to again so they will demand the attack on Iran. Amazing how many people will believe outright lies only because the man has a 'president' in front of his name.

The pivotal speech - Jan 2002 State of the Union address - as public lies began.

[TurkishGUY]

bush kicks ass. democrats suck ass

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TurkishGUY

bush kicks ass. democrats suck ass

Close, but I think the proper phrasing is "Bush orders hundreds of thousands of dedicated young men and women to kick ass to further the personal agenda of his supporters in a poorly planned and executed operation that has inflamed resentment against America and has resulted in the death and severe injury of thousands of brave solidiers, resulting in the suffering and hardship of tens of thousands of their family members."

Of course, your "bush kicks ass" fits really nicely on a bumper sticker, so I guess you win. My bad.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Tony Blair speech lies by misrepresenting facts.

Here's an good example of just that.

This from American generals before we Pearl Harbored Iraq.

To rational people "Pearl Harbored" would mean a sneak attack. The invasion of Iraq was hardly a secret. Saddam and the whole world knew it was going to happen months in advance. Misusing that term repeatly indicates it's being used to inflame and incite an emotional response rather than relying on facts to convince the reader.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Here's an good example of just that. To rational people "Pearl Harbored" would mean a sneak attack. The invasion of Iraq was hardly a secret. Saddam and the whole world knew it was going to happen months in advance. Misusing that term repeatly indicates it's being used to inflame and incite an emotional response rather than relying on facts to convince the reader.

I agree, we did not 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq. We did, however, invade the country on what appears to have been a trumped up pretext, which is pretty much what Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait. Right now our current adminstration is locked into the 'we did it to free Iraq' story. Really the only two choices they have is that they made a mistake based on bad intelligence or deliberately misled Congress to acheive a goal they desired all along. So instead of impeachment for incompetence or deceit, we have an 'accidental war of liberation', and a 'freedom occupation'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh, I agree with you Rich.
I was just objecting to the Pearl Harbor thing.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Here's an good example of just that. To rational people "Pearl Harbored" would mean a sneak attack. The invasion of Iraq was hardly a secret. Saddam and the whole world knew it was going to happen months in advance.

Pearl Harbor - attack another nation without a declaration of war. Attack another nation without any provocation for war. How it is done tatically is irrelevant. In the original Pearl Harbor, the emotional hype the sneak attack part. But the strategic importance of a Pearl Harbor attack is significant. It is also why Robert Kennedy said he understood how Tojo felt. The invasion of Cuba would not have been a secret. But we almost 'Pearl Harbored' Cuba. Again without declaration of war but at least with a purpose.

Iraq was invaded for no reason - other than the greater glory of George Jr. There was no declaration of war. There was no legal authorization for war. As the Secretary General said, the invasion of Iraq was illegal. One cannot get much closer to meeting the definition of 'Pearl Harbor'.

Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. Fine. A beautifully executed tactical manuever. But what makes Pearl Harbor so wrong lies in no declaration of war, no justified reason for war, and done only for the greater glory of the supreme leader. Three reasons apply both to Japan's attack at Pearl and to US invasion of Iraq. The US 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, ok. There was a declaration of war, they just forgot to give it to us before the attack. Yeah, I know they tried to time giving it to us to less than an hour before the attack and failed, same difference. There was also a reason which was to keep us (MacArthur) from interfering with their taking over the whole Pacific, especially SE Asia.

But all that aside, I think to most people, Pearl Harbor means sneak attack.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But all that aside, I think to most people, Pearl Harbor means sneak attack.

.... which is why I knew sooner or later I was going to have to again explain the concept. Yes, the emotional aspect of Pearl Harbor is why it made such a perfect smoking gun. Hands down - it so vilified the Axis powers as to make, for example, spys virtually impossible within this country. It completely destroyed any anti-war movement. It did just as Admiral Yamamoto worried. It awoke a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.

But the point remains that the US invaded Iraq on same principles that America considers so despicable at Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately some people prefer not to see it that way.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by tw

.... which is why I knew sooner or later I was going to have to again explain the concept.

It's not a matter of trying to explain the concept. It's a matter of you getting the concept totally wrong. You so desperately attempt to put the US in a bad light that you'll reach for any bad thing you can find, and this time your reach has exceeded your grasp.

Even the little teeny point of congruency you're attempting to reach for -- that Japan attacked the US to keep the US out of the war, and the US attacked Iraq to forestall future aggressive endeavors -- isn't really all that similar. And it doesn't matter; the reasons for Japan attacking the US weren't what made Pearl Harbor so terrible in the minds of Americans. The mere fact of the attack was one reason, and the manner was another.