Bush clarified nothing we didn't know already... but he may have opened the door to more criticism than ever with these remarks.
President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.…
Article comments
26 - JR
The obvious difference between WWII and the war on terror is that the U.S. won WWII.
On this date in 1945, Hitler was dead and Japan and Germany had unconditionally surrendered. Today, Osama bin Laden makes Islamofascist infomercials while we are enquagmired in Iraq.
27 - Hal Pawluk
Dave #4: So, in fact, the similarity to World War II is far more apt than you realize. Bush may not be FDR, but the strategy here is very similar to what we did in WWII.
From here, the neocon strategy vis-a-vis Iraq looks more like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor.
28 - MCH
"um, you mean how you didn't volunteer for combat duty, and now you just complain about people who don't volunteer for combat duty."
- Joe
At least I didn't desert, ala GW Bush.
Actually it's the people who bellicosely "support" the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq from the safety of their keyboards, sending others to die in their place while refusing to enlist, who I complain about.
29 - Joe
Like I said.
And I never did see those formal charges on Bush.
30 - MCH
Well somebody's lying then, Joe. Either GW Bush is not telling the truth, or the guys who said he wasn't there are lying.
There have been at least four different rewards for anyone witnessing GW Bush serving at Dannelly or Ellington AFB from May, 1972-Aug 1973:
1) 10 Vietnam vets, led by John Stewart and Richard Jones...$1,000;
2) Vets for Real Truth, president Robert A. Rogers...$2,000;
3) Gary Trudeau of Doonesbury...$10,000;
and 4) Texans For Truth...$50,000.
No one has ever collected. Perhaps those 1,200 Guardsmen who were at Dannelly and Ellington and say they didn't see your boy serving are lying, Joe.
Col. Turnispeed has testified that Bush did not report for duty at Dannelly in 1972. Col. Killian and Col. Harris both reported that GW was a no-show at Ellington in 1973.
Now, maybe those three Colonels were/are not telling the truth. Either way, somebody's lying, Joe...
31 - yellowscarf
2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers. [McCaffrey]
Argue all you want about GW Bush's military service, but it was WJ Clinton who was the dodger who didn't serve. The only service WJ can claim took place under his desk in the oval office.
Argue all you want about the reason's for attacking Iraq, but the World Trade Center attack and the fact that terrorists trained in both Afghanistan and Iraq is simply enough. What's puzzling is why the US hasn't attacked Syria, Iran, and Pakistan where the terrorists are hiding and receiving support now.
Pulling US military out of Iraq isn't going to stop the terrorist threat against Americans. It's too bad the Iraqi people haven't taken advantage of US support and the sacrifice of our military men and women have made. The sectarian and terrorist violence in Iraq happens in a place where it's part of their culture. Just wait for the blood bath if and when US forces do pull out.
Why do you think we've had military forces stationed in Japan, Germany, and Korea since the end of the war's in those countries? Fact is, the US has military forces stationed in more than 150 countries. Ever wonder why?
Sitting back and waiting for the next attack isn't a good plan as we've seen at Pearl Harbour, NYC, and multiple other places around the world.
Terrorism is a worldwide problem for the 21st century. Finding the sources, cells, and training centers for terrorism is essential. It requires having human intelligence capabilities and military reaction forces stationed in areas where the US believes terrorists hide.
No loss of life (in combat) is acceptable, but terrorists don't have the moral values to think that way. It's in the US best interest to go on the offensive and attack terrorism at its source whether it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other place on earth. If we don't do this, and become isolated, history will repeat itself.
As we've seen thusfar, the process of fighting terrorism won't be pretty and it won't go perfect.
Freedom has always come at a price. Fortunately, the US has military men and women willing to pay the price for our freedom.
People who wallow in simpleminded political rhetoric just don't seem to get the big picture.