Why George W. Bush Let a Soldier’s Mom Yell at Him

Yep, it was prepared by the White House, on request from the Navy.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

Bush never said "Mission Accomplished" in his speech.

 

I'm sure you have heard of the "Spanish American War" ? Have you also heard of the "Philippine Insurrection." The revisionist a few years ago started calling it the "Philippine-American War" in the name of "political correctness" aka "cultural Marxism". But for over 112 years for those who haven't been indoctrinated in liberal revisionist history it was the "Philippine Insurrection."

As soon as Saddam Hussein was no longer in power and went into hiding, the mission was accomplished and technically the war was over. Military occupation became the mission. Then the "Iraqi Insurrection" began, a second war.

Now if we are to hold up the "Iraq War" to the "Spanish American War", shouldn't we consider that the "Philippine Insurrection" / "Philippine-American War" to be part of the "Spanish American War" ? "That the Spanish American War" wasn't just a five month war fought in 1898 but a 15 year war involving American troops and instead of 2,910 American troops being killed during the "Spanish American War", but 9,075 Americans were killed.

BTW: 6,165 American soldiers and Marines were killed during that little war historically correct known as the "Philippine Insurrection."
4,448 American troops were killed in both wars in Iraq.

 

I don't believe they are making the world better. I believe they are making the world worse. The only smart ones I said are those who seek out the truth. Whining about what is wrong with the world is a lot better than supporting the wrong or blindly ignoring it.

 

As I said they are in fact taking a risk trying to make the world a better place even if not only succesfully.

This takes more courage which is a product of intelligence tha the losers, fools and whiners who only talk and never get off their butts to do anything.

 

The Iraquis were shooting down mostly drones in the no-fly zones. The no-fly zones were set up so the Iraqi couldn't fly their planes through them. Guess what. They didn't. The No-fly zones were also not recognized by the UN Security Council and they even called them illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

 

Are you kidding me. Both were subject to extreme propaganda. Both felt they were working towards the greater good. Both were cheered on by their patriotic and nationalistic supporters. Both felt that their side was right. These are peas in a pod.

 

They were shooting at piloted planes, just about every day.

Since 3 of the permanent members of the UN Security Council participated in the no-fly zones, the UN Security Council did not call them illegal.

 

The only reason they feel they are making it a better place is because they believe all the lies and propaganda set out for them.

 

Not true at all.

The troops in our army are exposed to little or no propaganda. Their side was right and unlike our government the government of germany was responsible for crimes against humanity.

Ours were in fact working for the greater good even of the campaign was a failure on the part of the government.

- - - Updated - - -

No this is false you clearly understand nothing about the military.

Your propoganda claim is absolute fiction and the war is justified even if Iraq was a stupid campaign and strategic mistake

 

Did you read my link.

.

 

I believe that George W's heart is in the right place, but that does not change that he was about as inept a president as ever held the office.

 

Nothing in your quotes conflicts with what I stated. Just because no manned aircraft were shot down doesn't mean they weren't shot at, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali was not the UN Security Council.

 

Thinking they are making the world a better place, through warfare no less, is precisely why they are idiots.

Some just think they are defending America's freedom, also stupid.

They are idiots who've been conditioned not to ask why and just follow orders. That makes the ruler's job easier and smoother, and the military more effective. I'll give you that.

 

Warfare is not ideal but it is actively taking a stand and doing something to change things.

This makes them smarter than those like you who only talk

 

Bush made some decisions both conservatives and liberals disagree with, but he was purely a class act. He did not look at himself as a superior figure. He always showed respect for others, even those who expressed their disagreement with him

Obama can't match Bush's class in any way shape or form. Obama shows little to no respect for anyone other than himself.

 

I'd like to meet you and explain to you the folly of that statement.

 

There's a substance filled comment.

 

The official most likely to be embarrassed by "Plan of Attack" is CIA Director George Tenet. It was Tenet, as much as anyone, who convinced Bush that the president could safely tell the public that Iraq had WMD. On Dec. 21, 2002, Tenet and Deputy Director for Intelligence John McLaughlin briefed Bush, Cheney and Rice in the Oval Office. McLaughlin set up a slide show on the agency's top-secret evidence that Saddam possessed WMD. When he was finished, there was "a brief moment of silence," writes Woodward:

" 'Nice try,' Bush said. 'I don't think this is quite--it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.'... Bush turned to Tenet. 'I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?' From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. 'It's a slam dunk!' the DCI said. Bush pressed. 'George, how confident are you?' Tenet, a basketball fan who attended as many home games of his alma mater Georgetown as possible, leaned forward and threw up his arms again. 'Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!' "

Later, when the invasion was over, Tenet acknowledged to associates that the CIA should have stated upfront in the National Intelligence Estimate that the evidence was "not ironclad, that it did not include a smoking gun," writes Woodward. (In a revealing scene, Woodward describes Michael Hayden, the director of the National Security Agency, explaining the uncertainties of intelligence to his wife as they wash the dishes. "If it were a fact," says Hayden, "it wouldn't be intelligence."

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1051684/posts

 

Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?



Bush says Congress had the same (faulty) intelligence he did. Howard Dean says intelligence was "corrupted." We give facts.

November 19, 2005

Modified: November 19, 2005

eMail eMail to a friend Print Printer Friendly Version

Summary




The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted."

Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.

read more
http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/article358.html

 

If anyone is going to attack us it's you when you run out of water. And I was talking about US soldiers.

 

Had you not heard of the Downing Sreet memo. Also here are testimonies from several members of congress that they didn't have the same intel as Bush. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2005/11/11/2517/iraq-intel/


Also:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/realitycheck.html

 

Go to post #19. I explain it all there.

 

Fact: The Iraq war was the longest and most expensive war in US history.

 

so....
bush says that he has not seen convincing evidence of wmd
tenet says dont worry its a slam dunk
and bush says oh, ok then.....?

and this is the commander in chief that inspires men to give their lives?

no ceo would accept such a pathetic response from a subordinate
but this guy is a great leader?
how exactly is it taking responsibility when you use such a lame excuse for not exercising basic due diligence in making such an enormous decision .... well tenent said it was a slam dunk so i figured that was good enough to invade a country???

and maybe i could sorta be convinced
if only this did not seem to be the ongoing pattern for making key decisions
OK sure, lets disband the iraqi army
and plan for the occupation, we don't need no steenking plans
tensions between the shia and sunni.... they will work it out
we will have the kurds join the government too, even though they think they want their own country
we will pay for fixing the country we blew up with oil revenue
we will re make the middle east
the economy will blossom once we unleash iraqs suppressed entrepreneurial spirit
iran... they better not even think of getting involved i this thing

yeah bush was real big on those slam dunk leadership decisions that he took full responsibility for

 

And all of this time I thought the Cold War was the longest, most expensive.

I've been told that the Vietnam War was just one battle of the Cold War.

BTW: The Iraq War had one of the lowest casualty rates of the wars America has fought. More soldiers and Marines were killed during the Philippine Insurrection than in Iraq.