Bush says war critics rewrite history

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now

ELIZABETH, New Jersey (CNN) -- President Bush on Monday strongly defended the U.S.-led war to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein against "revisionist historians" he suggested were trying to diminish the threat once posed by the deposed Iraqi leader.

The president made his comments on Iraq as he addressed a group of business leaders about the economy, touting recent tax cuts he signed into law as the kind of boost small businesses need.

But, as he often does when addressing audiences outside Washington, he talked about the war on terrorism, and he briefly turned his attention to Iraq.

"This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq," Bush said. "Now there are some who would like to rewrite history -- revisionist historians is what I like to call them.

"Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."

To applause, Bush added, "And this is for certain: Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States and our friends and allies."

The president's comments followed weeks of criticism from some lawmakers, mostly Democrats, and critics in Europe who question whether the administration manipulated intelligence data on Iraq to bolster its case for war.

In particular, some have said the administration exaggerated Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction, a claim various Bush aides have rejected.

The president never directly mentioned the WMD question in his comments and he never mentioned anyone by name.

But his use of the phrase "revisionist historians" is similar to a line used by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who earlier this month warned against "revisionist history" in the context of Iraqi WMD.

Some Democrats, however, continue to push for public congressional hearings into the matter.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday his panel would likely issue a public report and may hold public hearings after a closed review of U.S. intelligence used to build the Bush administration's case for war against Iraq.

"We are going to have administration officials," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, told CBS's "Face the Nation."

"I issued an open invitation to anybody who believes their analytical product was skewed in any way, or if they were intimidated or if they were coerced, that they can come to us. We've already had one individual say that he'd like to do that.

"At the end of the hearings, we will probably have a classified report and an open report and possibly a public hearing if we think it is warranted," Roberts said.

The House Intelligence Committee and Senate Armed Services Committees are participating in the review, which falls short of a formal congressional investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/bush.iraq/
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Re: Bush might be burning

U.S. intelligence used to build the Bush administration's case for war against Iraq was coerced, exaggerated, and often completely phoney.

Bush using Veterans Day to pitch his version of history is pretty disrespectfull, and there were vets protesting it!! Wow, Bushbaby is really in the frying pan - I wonder if he knows, if he hears any of it.

Honoring Veterans Includes Telling the Truth
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111205X.shtml

the UN agencies investigating Iraq’s weapons programs reporting that there was no evidence that they had reconstituted the programs. I also remember that there was no vote authorizing the war, because Negroponte and Straw knew they didn’t have the votes.

To send soldiers to their deaths based on lies is as disrespectfull as it gets. Wanting to go to war for personal gain is purely evil. A majority see it this way now, Bush might burn before his term is done.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,350
50
48
bush says a lot of things........but who believes him now??? bush might express some gratitude to those that might want to rewrite what he has "written" so far.

seems he has been writing his own history..... and it ain't all that favorable.

Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined, Group Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 04, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined, a group of conservative to moderate Democrats said Friday.

Blue Dog Coalition, which describes itself as a group "focused on fiscal responsibility," called the administration's borrowing practices "astounding."

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

"The seriousness of this rapid and increasing financial vulnerability of our country can hardly be overstated," said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition and member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

"The financial mismanagement of our country by the Bush Administration should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of political persuasion," said Tanner in a press release.

Earlier this year, the Blue Dog Coalition unveiled a 12-step plan to "cure" the nation's "addiction to deficit spending." It included requiring all federal agencies to pass clean audits, a balanced budget, and the establishment of a rainy day fund for use in emergencies specifically a natural disaster.

"No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have witnessed over the past four years," said Tanner. "If this recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as American citizens is in great jeopardy."

12 step program for addictive spending indeed.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,350
50
48
Bush might burn before his term is done.

one can only HOPE. It might mean a wee crisis (political) in the US.......but something has to change........both for the americans and the world at large. The bloke is as ineffective as one can get..........while being destructive .
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Liar Bush hated while Americans loved by Canadians:

Sunday, November 13, 2005


Bush disliked by 73% in Canada
But 68% like Americans

Adrian Humphreys
National Post


Saturday, November 12, 2005

Canadians tend to dislike and fear George W. Bush, a new poll suggests. Seventy-three per cent expressed an unfavourable opinion of the U.S. President and 38% said they felt he was more dangerous to world security than Osama bin Laden.

Those results, however, should not be seen as sweeping anti-Americanism. While Mr. Bush is singularly disliked in Canada, the nation does not allow that feeling to taint its image of Americans as a whole. In fact, 68% of Canadians said they had a favourable opinion of Americans.

The poll of 1,016 randomly selected Canadians was conducted by Innovative Research Group for the Dominion Institute and the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute. A corresponding survey of 1,000 Americans was also conducted on some questions for a comparison of national views. The results were provided to the National Post.

When Canadians and Americans were each asked their views on Mr. Bush, there was decidedly less love for the President north of the border. Forty-six per cent of respondents in Canada said they had a "very unfavourable" impression of Mr. Bush, while only 27% of U.S. respondents expressed that.

Another 27% of Canadians had a "somewhat unfavourable" impression of Mr. Bush compared with 16% of Americans.

While 25% of Americans said they were "very favourable" of Mr. Bush, only 5% of Canadians were similarly impressed, and while 23% of American said they were "somewhat favourably" impressed by Mr. Bush, only 16% of Canadians shared that view.

When residents of Canada and the United States were each asked who was more dangerous to world security, Mr. Bush or bin Laden, 73% of Americans said bin Laden, the al-Qaeda terrorist leader. Far less -- 21% -- said their own president was.

Opinion on that issue was far more divided in Canada.

Less than half (49%) of Canadians said bin Laden was more dangerous, with another 38% naming Mr. Bush.

"The results show that the rising tide of anti-Americanism in this country is driven not out of a dislike for the American people but as a visceral dislike of Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq," said Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of the Dominion Institute, a group promoting knowledge of Canadian history.

The poll may reflect a feeling that politicians already know.

Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, has been raising objections to U.S. policies as he draws closer to an election call. In his first radio address last month, he sternly lashed out at the U.S. stand on the softwood lumber dispute.

And when Jean Chretien, the former prime minister, was defending the legacy of his tenure in power in the face of the damning Gomery report, he highlighted as one of his key decisions his keeping Canada out of the U.S-led war in Iraq.

The public-opinion survey also suggests Canadians are deeply divided on the appropriate balance of resources dedicated to our military. Half of those questioned said Canada was pulling its weight on national defence, compared with 40% who said we were getting a free ride from the United States.

While Canadian opinion was split over the state of the country's military efforts since the end of the Second World War, the intensity of feelings over it are far from ambivalent.

Of the 50% of Canadians who felt that Canada was pulling its own weight on national defence, half of them described that view as one they "strongly" held.

Similarly, of the 40% who felt that Canada was getting a free ride from the United States on defence, 16% "strongly" held that view.

The survey was conducted in late October and is considered to have a margin of error of 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.


Thank you, Canada -- we Yanks love you!
 

GL Schmitt

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2005
785
0
16
Ontario
Re: RE: Bush says war critics rewrite history

gopher said:
. . . Bush disliked by 73% in Canada
But 68% like Americans. . .
For me, the only surprising result in that survey was how many Canadians had a favourable opinion of Bush.

Living along an open border Canadians have long noticed the schizophrenic personality of America — with the individual generosity of its citizens contrasted against the predatory nature of its foreign policies (strongly influenced by what Eisenhower identified as its Military-Industrial Complex).

This divide of affection between Americans, as a people, and America, as a socio-political force in the world, has long affected America’s Canadian neighbours.

Perhaps it is only now, exacerbated by the iniquities of the Bush Administration, that American citizens, unenchanted and critical of their leadership, will notice this nuanced regard.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,350
50
48
For me, the only surprising result in that survey was how many Canadians had a favourable opinion of Bush.

hmm. wanna bet those bush supporters come from Alberta???;-)

Many in Alberta would join the US in a second... :roll:

liking americans?? too much of a generalization. There are the neocons with the bush attitude.....that are not favored all that much. Tolerated?? Yes. But most americans are decent folks......and now victims of their own pride,greed, religiosity and ruthless bush gov't. (rather unfortunate.........but they lost control over their leadership years ago.....as well as their system )
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse


TOBYHANNA, PA (IWR ) - President Bush today chastised the American people for believing his lies about the justification for the Iraq war.
"Come on I would have never been able to start a war in Iraq if you gullible SOBs didn't believe there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 or Saddam was baking nuclear weapons from that Betty Crocker yellow cake mix.

I mean when I said: 'The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.' you weren't supposed to take me literally for Christ sakes.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,350
50
48
pastafarian said:


TOBYHANNA, PA (IWR ) - President Bush today chastised the American people for believing his lies about the justification for the Iraq war.
"Come on I would have never been able to start a war in Iraq if you gullible SOBs didn't believe there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 or Saddam was baking nuclear weapons from that Betty Crocker yellow cake mix.

I mean when I said: 'The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.' you weren't supposed to take me literally for Christ sakes.


EXCELLENT pastafarian!! Kudos :thumbleft:


those that bought into his lies....(aka crappola ) must feel pretty damned stupid now..........(or should :wink: They will most likely try to spin themselves out of this. Pride and all that.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,350
50
48
pastafarian said:
for easy /quick identification???

...when they're giving the rest of the world the finger! :wink:
:wink: :lol:

exactly and the world can identify instantly who these (XXX) are.

;-)

(actually, not a bad idea. :wink:
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
There you have it....when we give the finger, it is for a reason...the purple mark is to identify us from the people who give the world the finger for no reason; like the hippies did in the sixties. :wink:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,350
50
48
Re: RE: Bush says war critics rewrite history

Jay said:
There you have it....when we give the finger, it is for a reason...the purple mark is to identify us from the people who give the world the finger for no reason; like the hippies did in the sixties. :wink:


Purple finger could get to be the new craze......in us "culture". :wink: (better than the pet rock thing they had some yrs back)


(who knows , the Iraqis might just warm up to the us....;-) Purple finger being the common denominator.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
You might be right. A new way to show support for the troops.... Instead of "Support Our Troops" stickers, we could have purple fingers.

It will be nice when all this is done and Iraq has functioned on its own steam for a few years.....
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,350
50
48
Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics

SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST
PERMALINK
COMMENTS (268)

In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.

I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

Bush might accept "the responsibilities and criticisms," but has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes. For instance, he gave a spiffy medal to former CIA chief George Tenet, who was responsible for the prewar intelligence failure.

While it's 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.

When was the last time Bush talked about how the war began--that is, when did he mention that his primary reason for war (protecting the American public from the supposed WMD threat posed by Saddam Hussein) was discredited by reality? Is ignoring history the same as rewriting it?

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.

This is not the full and accurate explanation of the controversy at hand. The issue of whether the Bush administration misled the nation in the run-up to the war has two components. The first is the production of the intelligence related to WMDs and the supposed al Qaeda-Sadam connection. The second is how the Bush crowd represented the intelligence to the public when trying to make the case for war. As for the first, the Senate intelligence committee report did say the committee had found no evidence of political pressure. But Democratic members of the committee and others challenged this finding. Several committee Democrats pointed to a CIA independent review on the prewar intelligence, conducted by a panel led by Richard Kerr, former deputy director of the CIA, which said,

Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq's links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.

More to the point, Kerr told Vanity Fair that intelligence analysts did feel pressured by the go-to-war gang. The magazine in May 2004 reported,

"There was a lot of pressure, no question," says Kerr. "The White House, State, Defense were raising questions, heavily on W.M.D. and the issue of terrorism. Why did you select this information rather than that? Why have you downplayed this particular thing?...Sure, I heard that some of the analysts felt pressure. We heard about it from friends. There are always some people in the agency who will say, 'We've been pushed to hard.' Analysts will say, 'You're trying to politicize it.' There were people who felt there was too much pressure. Not that they were being asked to change their judgments, but there were being asked again and again to restate their judgments--do another paper on this, repetitive pressures. Do it again."

Was it a case, then, of officials repeatedly asking for another paper until they got the answer they wanted? "There may have been some of that," Kerr concedes. The requests came from "primarily people outside asking for the same paper again and again. There was a lot of repetitive tasking. Some of the analysts felt this was unnecessary pressure. The repetitive requests, Kerr made clear, came from the C.I.A.'s "senior customers," including "the White House, the vice president, State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Despite Bush's assertion, the question remains whether undue pressure was applied by the White House. And in his Veterans Day speech, Bush ducked the second issue: how he and his aides depicted the intelligence. This is the source of the dispute over the so-called Phase II investigation of the Senate intelligence committee. The allegation is that Bush and administration officials overstated and hyped the flawed intelligence and claimed it was definitive when they had reason to know it was not.

For example, in his final speech to the nation before launching the war, Bush claimed that US intelligence left "no doubt" about Iraq's supposed WMDs. But there was plenty of doubt on critical issues. Intelligence analysts at the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with those at the CIA about the evidence that purportedly showed Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program: its importation of aluminum tubes and the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Niger. (In 2002, Dick Cheney said the tubes were "irrefutable evidence," and Condoleezza Rice said they were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But a year earlier, as The New York Times reported in 2004, "Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear expert seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.") The CIA believed Iraq had chemical weapons. But the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that there was no evidence such stockpiles existed. Some intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. The experts on UAVs at the Air Force thought this was not so. Was Bush speaking accurately when he told the public--and the world--there was "no doubt"?

Also, did Bush make specific claims unsupported by the intelligence? The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced in October 2002, maintained that Iraq had an active biological research and development program. Bush publicly said Iraq had "stockpiles" of biological weapons. There is a difference between an R&D program (which Iraq did not have) and warehouses loaded with ready-to-go weapons (which Bush implied existed). How did an R&D program become stockpiles? This is as intriguing a question as how those sixteen words about Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa became embedded in the State of the Union speech Bush delivered in early 2003.

******


the only one rewriting history........is the bushman himself. Each time he comes up with a new lie/spin.......history is rewritten.

the old adage: "If you can't beat them with brains.....baffle them with Bullsh*t"...