Gothamist: Bush Uses 9/11 to Forward Iraq Policy. Again.

mike

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:32:43 -0500

fishtale you either (a) initially penned a badly written post or (b) are now backpedaling. Pick one. Got it? Good. Move along.

Tim N.

Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:40:02 -0500

How about this line of reasoning: High gas prices: Blame Bush. Dead soldier husband: Blame Bush. Scared to leave your house: Blame Bush.

IRAQ !

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:32:10 -0500

Hey, I like GW's line of reasoning: Blame It All On Iraq! Power shortage in Queens?. Iraq! Falling home prices? Iraq! Your parked car got hit-and-run?. Iraq!. Feeling constipated and/or bloated?. IRAQ!

s

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:59:49 -0500

sorry J, I tried to read that article and you do in fact need to be a premium member and login to read it. Fishtale, no fucking shit sherlock, that's not the point anyone here is discussing, and the way you write makes it sound like you believe there was a link between 9/11 and Al Qaeda terrorism planning and execution PRIOR to 9/11, which as you may recall was one of GWB's justifications for invasion.

J

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:51:52 -0500

K, you don't have to subsribe to stratfor to read about why Iran is supposedly going to F*&^k us. you just have to know what a hyperlink is and how it works with a browser...

i'm audi

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:47:23 -0500

"Second, why should the Democrats be scrutinized for not offering a workable exit strategy. They didn't put us there in the first place." Uh, because they're going to have to deal with it if they take power? When you're the party out of power you have to bring something to the table to knock the other guy off. Gingrich brought out his Contract in 1994. He didn't whine for six years and bring it on in 1998. This goes beyond Iraq. Scratch beneath the surface of the Democratic Party rhetoric and there is nothing there. And don't bother coming back with "the Republicans have nothing either." It doesn't matter. They're the ones in office. And frankly, electing a bunch of left wingers like Lamont or anti-Iraq War veterans is precisely what I'm talking about. Does anyone know how these people are going to handle Medicare? Social Security? I mean, c'mon. We know they are against private accounts. What are they for? Democrat leaders complain about the rising cost of health care. OK. So what's the plan? Or is it like Nixon's "secret plan" to end Vietnam, which, FYI, is a war Democrats got us into.

fishtalez

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:39:21 -0500

s, it means if we don't "win" the war in iraq by establishing a stable government there, we will have done virtually nothing since 9/11.

robin.g

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:35:02 -0500

Democrats have no ideas or solutions? The Fighting Dems do. They are back from Iraq and running for offices all over the country. http://www.fighting-dems.com/

11kap

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:06:31 -0500

If Bin Laden had the twins knocked down, Iraq sure is paying the price for it, and that ain't justice. Bush is a turd, because too many people are getting ished on because of his behind.

REALITY CHECK

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:49:41 -0500

I always wonder after reading these comments if anyone actually thinks they can convince the other side to change, or even bother hearing the other side's point of view. Why bother. On that note, BUSH IS THE WORST AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

s

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:48:48 -0500

"terrorism [9/11], including future attacks on american soil, are deeply connected to the war in iraq" what the hell does this mean then? You're just full of shit

k

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:35:13 -0500

j, you have to subsribe to stratfor to read about why Iran is supposedly going to F*&^k us. Or, you can read Fareed Zakaria explain that Iran couldn't F&*^K the U.S. if it tried, and why therefore everyone should seriously consider calming the f down: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640262/site/newsweek/ I laughed when I heard Bush mentioned keeping us safe from "dictators with nuclear weapons". Ahmadnejad was elected, so I presume he must have been referring to our ally Pervez Mushareff in Pakistan.

fishtale

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:27:22 -0500

i'm just going to ignore you s, since i believe there is NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and iraq. you are just further proving my point about people not reading and actually interacting with each other pancho, you make a good point that the democrats should not have the responsibility of formulating an exit strategy. i agree. you also say it's convenient for republicans to conveniently overlook that bush got us into the mess when making statements like "we are in it now, we need a plan to finish the job." as an independent, i'm not forgetting bush got us in there. at the same time however, what do you think the nation should do, go into a time machine? if bush was running for a 2nd term right now i would not vote for him. i don't know if i could vote for a dem tho because maybe it's just the loudmouths but all i'm hearing from them is "bush sucks, lets get out of iraq." what is a voter to do when voting for anyone outside dem/rep is useless? oh well

Pancho

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:06:17 -0500

It drives me nuts when Republicans say something like "well, maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we are there now and the Democrats are not offering a strategy to get out of Iraq." First, how convenient for them to say lets simply overlook the "small" misjudgment of going into Iraq in the first place and to minimize what is taking place in Iraq. Second, why should the Democrats be scrutinized for not offering a workable exit strategy. They didn't put us there in the first place. What I do know is that Democrats will not put us in another Iraq-like situation. Voters have every reason to believe the Republicans will.

J

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:55:23 -0500

Interesting article by George Friedman about the currant situation in Iraq, what the Iranians are doing to f*ck us, and even if we don't like it, how we're stuck there... http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=271903

s

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:28:05 -0500

what you are wrong about is that there was any connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

fishtale

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:23:58 -0500

LOL s, you are ridiculous. you obviously didn't understand me the first (or second) time as you claim to have. if you actually read anything i wrote you would know that i never said invading iraq was a smart decision. the only mention i ever made of the invasion was to say: "maybe we shouldn't have invaded iraq- it doesn't really matter to my argument. because all i'm saying is we are there now and if we leave anytime soon we'll only be making the situation worse." so essentially WE BOTH AGREE given that you wrote "Of course we cant leave now..." (I actually read what people write before responding). my only point in this thread, as i made clear in my second post, is to say that i don't understand why people are angry about bush's speech last night. he affirmed our intention of seeing out the conflict which i believe is necessary, and which you apparently do as well, s. but i know, you are probably so overcome with your rage against bush that instead of reading what i acutally wrote you prefer to glance at it, assume i'm dick cheney, and then respond with the set answer to the neo-con viewpoint (which i don't espouse at all). perfect example of why discussion of all this stuff is pointless- no one actually listens to each other.

Brightliner

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:20:28 -0500

That Olbermann commentary was pretty good, surprisingly. Bush is an idiot, no doubt about that. The biggest sign of that is that he continues to cling to his precious lies. Only an idiot wouldn't notice that they lose ever more effectiveness and believers with each passing year, each passing month even. If the majority of people don't believe him already, what will they say in ten or twenty years? Today, you'd have a hard time finding anyone who'd say the Vietnam War was worth it. He must be truly deluded if not demented if he thinks history will turn on a dime and see him as the deliverer of this nation.

you said it

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:10:57 -0500

s is right on with that last post. nice work.

s

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:59:20 -0500

fishtale, we understood you the first time around, and you're still wrong. There was no urgency to invade Iraq. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney had been planning the invasion since they were "elected" the first time around in 2000, pre-9/11. They had no justification for it and 9/11 fell into their laps giving them the excuse they needed. If they really wanted to take a pre-emptive war to a country that poses a REAL terrorist threat to the the US and the world, they would have gone into Iran. Hmmm, they didnt though. Why? Because short of using nuclear weapons, which wouldnt sit well with Russia or China, we would get our assed kicked in Iran. Iraq was an easy target from a military standpoint, hence the rapid invasion, but our short sighted and greedy "president" didnt count on the fact that Iraqis, like any other invaded people, would resist invaders despite being oppressed by their leaders. Of course we cant leave now, we've made things worse by removing Saddam because now the country is up for grabs and most likely headed towards a hard-line Islamic theocracy. Bush & Co. went in for a seemingly easy money and oil grab, but fucked up big time. We're going to spend upwards of 2 trillion dollars there when its all said and done, more dead American soldiers than people killed on 9/11, and meanwhile, people are still living in refugee camps outside New Orleans, Americans have no healthcare, and Al Qaeda has gone from an estimated 10,000 members in 2001 to 50,000 today. Good Job!

Jay

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:49:31 -0500

Keith Olbermann's commentary after 9/11 coverage.. HE CALLED IT!

wasted vote in nyc

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:09:39 -0500

hey, let me have a go at drastic oversimplification: the administration's policy is like sending in state troopers to beat up the class bully after misfits have shot up the high school. that man owes us lunch money.

fishtale

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:56:29 -0500

OK..when I said Sep 11 I meant it in the "terrorist attack on US soil" way, not the actual events on Sep 11. So when I wrote "september 11 and terrorism are deeply connected to the war in iraq" it should have more accurately said "terrorism, including future attacks on american soil, are deeply connected to the war in iraq. with that clear, i stand by it and the rest of what i wrote. at this point, if you don't think terrorism and the war in iraq are connected you're crazy. maybe we shouldn't have invaded iraq- it doesn't really matter to my argument. because all i'm saying is we are there now and if we leave anytime soon we'll only be making the situation worse. gdi speaks the truth. i don't think bush is the best dude, i already said that. so why can't someone else come up with a mf'in plan that will see us through this conflict? i don't like to see any of this, and i'd prefer for bush to not be the one spearheading the war on terror, but shit, at least in his speech last night he said we need to really straighten everything out in iraq. i agree, and not too many other people are sayin that. that's all i'm sayin

Vanessa

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:42:29 -0500

GO VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES TODAY. The polls are open until 9pm. With all this talk of politics, I hope that people are out there taking advantage of democracy. If you're not sure whether or not you are registered to vote, you can call (212) 868-3692 and enter your address and name into an automated system. The system will tell you if you are registered and in which election district and assembly district you reside and of course they will tell you where you can find your polling station. I downloaded a PDF with a list of candidates that was three miles long and I wasn't sure how many I am able to vote for, so I called the number and they told me the four offices/positions that I can vote on. You can do the same. They were very helpful and I wasn't put on hold. If you're not registered to vote (jesus christ!) please register. (212) 868-3692 http://vote.nyc.ny.us/ Thanks!

I dream of Gennie

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:36:26 -0500

IRAQ? terrorists? You mean the Beverly Hills of the Middle East? Didn't anyone see "Three Kings"? they got Lexus convertibles. Iraq being connected to terrorists is like Kuwait connected to terrorism. Both rich oil countries with prada, LV, and every goddamn designer crap store you can mention.

Peakguy

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:27:36 -0500

What kills me the most is that we had the world's sympathy and love for a few months, even through the Afghanistan campaign we were riding high in world opinion. But once we started the march to war in Iraq, we lost it all and now we are hated. What's more, after 3 years of battling an nasty insurgency, we are no longer feared either. Neither loved nor feared. Even Machiavelli would think that Bush has failed as a leader. Where's Osama by the way?

buy a clue

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:21:10 -0500

"and he has made us incredibly unsafe due to his blundering foreign policy." Uh, because we were so safe before it. . . .

GDI

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:17:54 -0500

If just once, one of you could say something besides, "Bush sucks". I would probably die from shock. Really? He sucks? No kidding! I would never have figured that out without your brilliant insight. Now how about one of you actually articulate how things can be made better - beyond Bush leaving office. Maybe that's part of the reason Democrats don't win more races. Nobody really understands what the hell they plan on doing about anything. Sadly, I bet none of you do either.

Tim N.

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:13:23 -0500

He might actually be funny if it were not for the fact that a GI has probably been killed in Iraq in the time it took me to write this. Nice job fucking up the whole world, dumbass.

pastoralia

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:12:21 -0500

I think the Post cover got it right: "Why We Fight" right next to the answer. And fishtail- please explain how September 11 and the invasion of Iraq are related. We're all waiting.

drewo

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:07:44 -0500

If only each American had to personally cut a check each week to cover their share of the "war" in Iraq, perhaps those warmongers out there might whistle a different tune.

J

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:07:43 -0500

"After a day of the world could not afford to take." Okay: I've been staring at this for five whole minutes, and I still have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Those first two paragraphs are... speech summary, right? Or your opinion? Or parody? One of us needs a lot more caffeine, Gothamist. Maybe both of us.

anomalous

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:03:20 -0500

fishtale, September 11th had nothing to do with Iraq. The Bush administration twisted American's outrage over September 11th as one in a long series of ad hoc justifications for invading Iraq. That the administration continues to conflate Iraq, September 11th and the fight against terrorism, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to cower the american people into supporting their position shows how craven and corrupt they are. It is true that we can't just leave Iraq. People who support that position will have to justify the mass murder and chaos that will certainly occur should we do so. Getting out of Iraq is going to be extremely difficult and the decisions on how to do so can't be left with people with simplistic visions of how the world operates.

uh

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:56:22 -0500

fishtail: the reason everyone is so "uptight" is because he is, without question, one of the worst (if not the worst) presidents this country has ever had. call me crazy, but i don't think it is "uptight" to be worried now that we have lost the goodwill of most of the world due to his illegal invasion of iraq. "september 11 and terrorism are deeply connected to the war in iraq. if you haven't already come to that conclusion on your own you have problems." please enlighten me how 9/11 and iraq are connected (in reality, not in bush's head)? some major newspapers and even a former CIA analyst don't seem to think so, so i am curious to hear your sources on this. people bitch about how stupid he is, because he is incredibly stupid! and he has made us incredibly unsafe due to his blundering foreign policy.

fishtale

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:42:40 -0500

why does everyone get so uptight about this shit? i don't particularly like the dude, but he can't say anything without everyone bitching about how stupid he is. the speech said nothing about how republicans are the only ones who can lead us, how he wants to change the laws and run for a third term, etc. it was pretty straightforward- september 11 and terrorism are deeply connected to the war in iraq. if you haven't already come to that conclusion on your own you have problems. i don't know about the rest of you, but i'll be voting for someone who plans on staying in iraq until there is stability there, whether they are a republican, democrat, green, etc.

pfft!

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:28:09 -0500

it is a waste of my time to even type out how much i dislike that man. however, pay special note to the family portraits behind him. awww, how sweet... he's clearly just a regular guy just like us trying to keep 'merica safe from the big bad terrorists. remember: if you disagree with anything he says, you are letting the terrorists win.

Kojak

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:06:46 -0500

Thanks for the link to his speech, but I don’t think I can read it, as it is far too intellectually stimulating for my brain to comprehend.