How Dare He Fight Back!

Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate

President Bush escalated the bitter debate over the Iraq war on Monday, hurling back at Democratic critics the worries they once expressed that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to the world.

"They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now," Bush charged.

Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rationale for war.

Note the words of aggression applied to the president: “escalate,” “attack” as if the president started this crap. Because when he has the gall to defend himself against charges that he has “lied” about WMD in Iraq, he’s “escalating” the debate, he’s on the attack. Even when there are tons and megabytes of material evidence which prove that he did not lie about believing that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, even when his assessment of the situation was in total agreement with that of the previous Democrat president, dozens of other Democrats, the Leftists’ beloved Europeans and their even more beloved UN.

Better to just lie back and enjoy being buggered by the postmodern definition of ‘lie’--by the lie about what a lie is.

However, it appears that the president is done with that. More from the Alaska speech:

Leaders in my Administration and members of Congress from both parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq - and reached the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Let me give you quotes from three senior Democrats: First, quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." End quote. Here's another one, quote, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." End quote.

And here's the way another Democratic leader summed it up, quote, "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion." The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world - and that person was Saddam Hussein.

Like some who read this blog, those who hurl accusations scream even more loudly when the accused defends himself. But the stakes are at the level to which President Bush can’t afford to just take the distortion of the record of events. For decades, Democrats and Leftists have attempted to shape the narrative of our nation’s strategic objectives and the motives of the objectives’ implementers (the military) by using falsehoods. Sometimes those attempts have been successful. But neither the Iraqis nor the Americans can afford for that to happen this time.

I think that those who claim that President Bush either lied about Iraqi intelligence estimates or manipulated them are hoping that the president’s defenders will simply get tired. After all, the claims of the Democrats are so preposterous and so easily refuted that it seems ridiculous to even address them. But everyone won’t look at reports from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or UN resolutions or even look for them. Some will simply listen to what’s broadcast over the airwaves and over cable. It's about time that this White House took advantage of that fact.

BTW, I wonder if it has occurred to the Democrats that they are claiming to have been duped by a man who they deem to be unintelligent. If not, that shows you just how strategic most Democrats are in their thinking. Answer: not at all.

UPDATE: It's like a tennis match only with infinitely higher stakes. The New York Times pushes back, but Jeff Goldstein notes that the White House is learning to return quickly and to gain service. The White House fisked the NYTimes!

Comments

[justin]

Baldilocks, the claim by Democrats is that they were not presented with all of the pre-war intelligence, and that expecially, the fact that there was disagreement in the intelligence community over some of the Iraq claims.

I'm not sure if it's true, and that is why we need to have the Phase 2 investigation into how the administration used intelligence that was promised. Remember the Senate Intelligence Committee unaimously agreed to conduct the investigation after the election. If Bush has nothing to hide, he will be cleared and the Democrats will be embarassed.

[Darleen]

Justin

I call bs. Dems/Leftists are engaging in historial revisionism AND outright lies (see Dean the Scream).

CONSENSUS of the intelligence analysis was that Saddam was an ongoing threat... CONSENSUS means there were competing claims and contradictory reports. But that means one makes their best judgment on what one is presented with...

The exact same stuff as the Intelligence committee got..the exact same stuff that lead Clinton, in 1998, to sign LEGISLATION that made Saddam's OUSTER a national goal.

And post 9/11 we could not afford to sit back, sip tea and let the next generation handle it (does the almost 3 weeks of Islamist rioting from border to border in France teach you nothing?).

Of course, the MSM (a wing of the DNC) colludes to obfuscate the facts and most people go about their daily business of family, work, leisure with not much more than scanning headlines, rarely working down to paragraph 17. That's what has proved invaluable about bloggers and the Internet.

And that's why the Dems are anxious to shutup bloggers.

[justin]

So, Darleen, you should be in favor of the Phase 2 investigation regarding use of pre-war intelligence to finally clear the President's name. Please write you Senator and tell him or her so.

[Michael]

The so-called "phase II" will immediately be used by leftists to claim, "See? There's an investigation. There must be something to discover."

It's obvious going back a decade and looking at Democrat statements regarding Saddam Hussein that most Democrats believed he was a threat. After the fact, they sing a different tune to appease their anti-war base.

Funny how the twin towers we complained nobody connected the dots but with Saddam we complain that we *are* connecting the dots.

[Bill O..]

As I said before just look at how Judy Miller was used to plant false information by Cheney, how Powell admitted on meet the press that he was given "exagerated" information (i.e. lied to), the White house Iraq group as well as the office of special plans have done some questionable things that merit ivestigation. If we can spends tens of millions of dollars on investigating a land deal and oral sex why cant we investigate what caused the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings. If the Dems are playing games and Bush is not a liar then the Dems will come out looking stupid just in time for the 2006 elections. So as Justin said all pro-occupation pro-war Bush supporters should write their congressmen and encourage them to complete phase 2 of the intellegence committee investigation.

[baldilocks]

Actally, I agree with Justin and Bill.

OT

Bill, how many IP addresses do you have? Oh well. I'll ban this one too. And if you get another, I'll keep whacking you down.

[Bill O..]

I glad you admit you agree. That took maturity.

[Eric]

Point of comparison:

Chicago-Sun Times: U.S. may have freed Jordan bomber-to-be

http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-jord15.html

Before I draw the comparison, I'll repeat a point I've made before that not just the 'facts', but the standard used to judge the case for regime change in Iraq is fundamentally different for supporters and opponents. Basically, it's judging by 'guilty until proven innocent' vs. judging by 'innocent until proven guilty'. Even if they accept that Saddam was proven guilty of violating the UN resolutions anyway, the debate by opponents is over whether he was proven guilty to the exacting standard of our legal system where folks are innocent until proven guilty of charges 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In terms of 'charges' vs 'crime', I guess you can also toss in the debate about the '3 strikes' rule, whether punishment should not exceed any one crime or if punishment can be a cumulative response to 'recidivist' criminality.

Now, this "Safaa Mohammed Ali" who just killed a bunch of people in Jordan may or may not have been the same man detained in Fallujah last year during that MOUT op, and then released by our guys due to lack of evidence. Last year, Ali was indeed treated as innocent until proven guilty, and in the most honorable legal tradition, he was released from prison. Today, post-humously, he can FAIRLY be tried for mass murder while all legal consciences are clean . . . right?

If a guy is a recidivist bread stealer, it's one thing. What about the moral and humane costs when the stakes for the highest standard of proof (the kind anti-war types grant to Saddam) for a recidivist are mass-casualty terroristic acts, as in what just happened in Jordan?

Last year, the assumption for Ali was innocence and many people have died as a consequence. What if a known belligerent recividist has repeatedly failed to meet the conditions of 'rehabilitation' and there are indicators of compelling *circumstantial* evidence (by nature, circumstantial evidence will be in dispute) that people will be hurt by him? Never mind what he was doing to his own people already - with our help.

Saddam had many chances to prove his innocence. Probably too many. This President even gave him a last chance after the last President had declared "Iraq has failed its final chance".

[Darleen]

If we can spends tens of millions of dollars on investigating a land deal and oral sex why cant we investigate what caused the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings

Well, for one thing... because the law about special prosecuters (independent counsel) EXPIRED

putz

Geez, you LIED in that whole post, including the "and"s and "the"s.

[Warthog]

The more the democrats look backwards as to why we have troops fighting in Iraq, the more they are dooming themselves to failure. Keep it up! Most Americans understand that President Bush (Doctrine)is looking at the long term picture.

[scott]

Baldi-

Act(u)ally, I agree with Justin and Bill.

What good will "Phase II" accomplish?

"Phase I" determined that there was no pressure exerted by the admin to slant the intel and that Joe Wilson was a complete liar- but, did this convince the left?

When the Phase II is completed, nothing will change... the left will continue to ignore or deny anything that doesn't confirm their pre-existing beliefs.

[justin]

Scott said:

What good will "Phase II" accomplish?

"Phase I" determined that there was no pressure exerted by the admin to slant the intel and that Joe Wilson was a complete liar- but, did this convince the left?

Scott, the Phase 1 report says, on page 2, that "whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information" are still under review and will be addressed in Phase 2.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

All I want is for the investigation to be finished. Realize, that if you support the President and believe that he did not exaggerate intelligence, you should want the investigation to be completed. Believe me, if it turned out Democrats are lying to me about not being provided with all of the intelligence, I think I'd have trouble voting for the party ever again.

[Darleen]

the left will continue to ignore or deny anything that doesn't confirm their pre-existing beliefs.

Jay Rockefeller wrote a memo in 2003 to just that effect.

They hate Bush more than they care about Islamist terrorism. They would rather our military lose in Iraq than have a complete American military victory than see GW credited with anything. They would rather see Iraq loose its bid for democracy than GW succeed.

These erstwhile "patriots" would rather turn back the clock and see Saddam back in charge of Iraq, arguing "the war was all wrong" rather than letting people realize how craven and morally berift they truly are.

[Rachel]

to me, this so called phase II is nothing more than Dems flogging a dead horse. I'm liberal and vote Dems often but even I think this and other moves are just some weird attempt to undo Nov. 2 2004. We lost. Get over it. Plame is not, nor ever will be, the Watergate scenario we are wetting ourselves over.
I also find it disgusting how this war is seen not as a human tragedy (as most wars are) but some sort of political game btwn Reps and Dems. It sickens me that both sides are using the WOT for their political gain and not thinking sincerely about the citizens they represent.

[Rachel]

correction, ALL wars are tragedies. I haven't had enough coffee

[skinnerI]

"All wars are tragedies" is a given but, hesitating to go to war often causes worst tragedies.
ask the jews that were murderered or worked to death for 5 years in Hitlers death camps
Or perhaps the kurddish dead , they might want to comment. Or Idi Amins victims... long gone Some bodys gotta stand up for ,Global,[God I hate that word}, Justice. Theres always mistakes in war as in life . but the biggest is hesitation I think History has prooved this enough !!!

[skinnerI]

I really screwed up In my last post ..... When i said perhaps these dead people might want to speak up . I saw the documentarys taken right after Sadam gassed the Kurddish village the babys died first because the chemicals worked fast on them I watched theyr'e parents while they were redused to tossing them into dumpsters Clearly most of the first to die were too young to speak yet. I imagine the other genocides where the same MY MISTAKE

[skinnerI]

Darleen I just read your'e post
,above, And you hit the nail on the head and slammed it where it belongs { I know I'M a contractor]
I didnt see youre post before because it was hidden underneith a blitthering idiots post and Ive grown accostumed to scanning down at 10 mph. when I see His name or
his girlfreinds . Theres no excuse for this kind of blind hatred ,during a war That they said was valid These people do not deserve the freedom that our fighting men have given theyr'e lives for and as you say they are depraved and morally bankrupt.
P.S. I could, and want to be, more descriptive but this is a FAMILY SHOW