Here is the gospel truth. You can believe me, because I am your President, and I would never lie to the American people.
I stand for freedom. That’s why I invaded Iraq. I wanted to liberate them from Saddam Hussein.
Sure, that’s not what I said in the beginning. I said I wanted regime change. I said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I hinted that he was behind 9/11.
I believed all this, I swear. This is the gospel truth. I did not cynically fix the facts around the policy.
As I said before, all the intelligence operations in the world thought Saddam had WMD, even though they didn’t think this. It’s true because I say so, and because Karl Rove told me to say so.
I did not ignore German intelligence when they told us that the informant Curveball, who claimed Saddam had biological weapons, was a total flake. I did not ignore British intelligence when they said it was BS that Saddam wanted to buy tubes from Niger. I did not cherry-pick CIA evidence, or hound them to back my case with flimsy evidence. Powell made a great case to the UN. The fact that the German Foreign Minister said it did not convince him did not matter. Our media said it was a good case, and I believe them when they agree with me.
I sent enough troops to Iraq. Rumsfeld told me so. He is very competent. I believe him. We supplied our troops with enough body armor and armor for their Humvees.
The fact that our soldiers did nothing to stop the looting in Bagdhad did not contribute to any chaos in Iraq. The fact that the only place they protected was the Ministry of Oil does not mean anything. Stuff like that happens.
The Iraqis were ecstatic about our invasion. Look how they toppled the statue of Saddam. That was a spontaneous outbreak of Iraqi enthusiasm, not a rigged photo-op by the Pentagon.
The fact that our troops stormed into Iraqi houses, breaking down doors, handling Iraqi wives roughly in front of their husbands, and scaring kids, had nothing to do with Iraqis disliking us.
I did not change my tune when no weapons of mass destruction were found. I did not all of a sudden say that we were bringing democracy to Iraq. I thought so all along, even if I didn’t say so until then. My coming up with this had nothing to do with Al-Sistani calling out his followers to march in demand for national elections. I thought so before he forced my hand.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - John Bambenek
Thank you once again for this fine demonstration of why the Left can't be trusted with power... and the likely reason the GOP will still win in Nov.
How's Lamont working out for you?
2 - aprove
Bush is in a rush to all opposition crush to prevent him from his throne being pushed
3 - Nancy
Yoda is posting under the name, "approve" ??? Good article, Adam. It seems as tho no matter how many times you tell some people the truth, they just can't handle it & complain that you're just telling them the same old same old. Well, obviously you HAVE TO, because they didn't get it the first time around, did they?
4 - Georgio
Thanks for another factual article Adam...I know the Republicans won't like it as usual but who cares...The facts have to be said over and over again so the Stupids can absorb it..It's the same as bush telling the American stupids over and over that Sadamm and 9/11 go together..He had 80 percent of the stupids believing him so keep on saying it and laying out the facts Adam.
5 - Mark Schannon
Nicely done, Adam. Although I fear that Old Busher has so polarized this country that arguments about what a blithering idiot he is won't sway the neck-braced conservatives.
We should, however, focus our attacks on how miserably unprepared we were, how incompetent Rummy the Dummy is, the lack of understanding of regional issues, etc., i.e., if you're going to go to war, go to war to win. Bush had no concept of what winning was. He's incompetent.
Don't make it a liberal/conservative issue, because the conservatives have lead pipes melted and poured into their ears.
Make it a "go military" issue, where we should be supporting our troops with more that the spittle from Bush's drooling lips.
In Jameson Veritas
6 - Baronius
Yeah, and Nancy shows up to poison the well for any conservative criticism, and Nalle will make a (slightly strident) refutation, and Gonzo will stop by wthi his Usual spelling adn Capitalization problmes, then some second-stringers like Baronius will put in their two cents, and we'll have a 100-comment debate about who drinks kool-aid.
7 - Taloran
John Bambenek and JustOneMan have failed to provide insightful rebuttals to this article. Their strategy, here and elsewhere on BlogCritics, appears to be to make snide comments regarding the thoughts of others, rather than providing any meaningful thoughts of their own.
I challenge each of them to post an article listing, detailing and supporting the good, honorable and beneficial things this President and his administration have done for the United States and the world. I for one would find that much more thought-provoking than the drivel they've written above.
8 - Dave Nalle
You missed a good line, Adam.
"I sent enough troops to Iraq. Rumsfeld told me so. He is very competent. I believe him."
You could have added at the end of this "After all he served in the military, unlike the rest of my advisors."
You've failed in your mission. George Soros will be repossessing your soul at any moment.
Dave
9 - Dave Nalle
Taloran, it's a SATIRE article. People shouldn't be reasonably expected to provide rebuttals. Or are your comments satire in and of themselves - if so you play the role of self-righteous blowhard remarkably well.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
yawnnnn....please work on some new material..isnt there a policy about reposting the same crap under a different headline???
I believe Adam avoids violating that policy by changing the text of his one article subtly every time he reposts it.
Dave
11 - Taloran
Dave, I've been quietly reading BlogCritics for a long time, with occasional flurries of posting and commenting activity. The point of my first comment in months above was that JustOneMan, and to a lesser extent Bambenek, provide a lot of one-line rebuttals throughout BlogCritics, not just within this particular page. I would very much like to see either of them provide a well-reasoned, thoughtful perspective on the reasons why they support "that side" of the argument and this particular President, rather than the overly simplistic "Yawn" or "You liberals can't be trusted" mantra.
To his credit, Bambenek does indeed compose articles. Whether I agree with the subject or political slant thereof is immaterial. On the other hand, I have yet to see any comment on BC from JustOneMan that goes much beyond "I'm right, you're wrong, you're an idiot, so there."
While this particular post bears the "Satire" headline, the perspective provided by Adam Ash is the perception many people have of Mr. Bush. I don't believe it is much of a stretch to state that this is the most polarizing President the US has ever had, and I would very much like to read a well thought out defense of this administration and its domestic and global policies. Since JustOneMan consistently belittles anyone who dares criticize the President, while generally providing few supported facts or well-stated ideas, I thought I'd challenge him to do so.
I like to read well-composed articles reflecting a variety of political and intellectual viewpoints. I recently read an article written by a Marine Lieutenant on another blog site, which detailed many good things that have been accomplished in Iraq since the US invaded - a new schoolhouse here, replacement of ancient municipal water system there, a hospital operating at better than pre-war capacity somewhere else. The list was quite extensive, and I was quite astounded, as I have heard precious little cheerful news out of Iraq since Saddam was captured. I wrote the author of the article saying that I was pleased to hear that the $87B (or whatever it has climbed to now) spent on reconstruction had actually had some effect beyond enriching Halliburton execs, and was universally slammed by the liberal-leaning folks on the site for supporting the wrong side.
I'm sure there are those who can articulate reasons to support this President and some or all of his policies - your own writings tend to lean towards that side of the political spectrum, and you support a majority of conservative causes with wit, substantiated fact, and intellectual aplomb. JustOneMan does not appear to be able to do so, preferring to make pithy remarks to authors with whom he disagrees. I would instead like to read an article by him in which he states and supports his reasons for standing behind this President.
12 - Dave Nalle
Taloran, I think you get the one-line rebuttals to stuff like this because they already HAVE provided the more detailed and reasoned rebuttals and here they are facing the same tripe for the umpteenth time and they don't have the patience to go over the same facts again and again.
I carry no water for JoM, but I know that Bambenek and Arch are capable of and have in the past made reasoned and fact supported responses to posts like this. As you point out, I've done it too.
But the relentlessness of the left in posting the same arguments and misrepresentations over and over and over again is and I think is clearly intended to be extremely wearying. They've really latched onto the idea that if you say something often enough it doesn't matter if it is true, eventually those who disagree will get bored and will stop responding to it and those who haven't been paying attention long enough will just accept it as true.
Even more, one-line responses like we see here, actually help to legitimize the positions which Ash puts forward, because they make the more conservative responders appear superficial and snarky. I suppose that my choice of silence is just about as bad, but I'm discouraged too.
I guess the only other course is for me to have canned responses ready to go, and I may resort to that. I could make a succinct comment with links on each major talking point and then just repost them verbatim as needed. I could have one on the economy, one on the posititive aspects of Bush's record, one on why we really went into Iraq, one on every damned talking point that comes up, I suppose. Hell, I can even make some to refute the equally incorrect beliefs of the right on things like abortion, national security and immigration. But god that's a bunch of tedious busywork, and once I started doing canned responses they'd become just as pointless as one-line responses once people caught on. I try to address these issues in my articles as much as I can, but it's much more interesting to take on new topics.
But just to be pithy I'll offer my reasons for supporting the President at least insofar as I do. He's better than the alternative. In the face of terrorism, every abuse we've seen from the Bush administration would have come from a Democrat administration just as certainly, and with Bush in power at least taxes haven't been raised and very little progress has been made on the bogus 'hot-button' issues that both parties like to trot out from time to time.
Dave
13 - gonzo marx
heh..can't resist...
Dave sez...
*But just to be pithy I'll offer my reasons for supporting the President at least insofar as I do. He's better than the alternative.*
Objection, your Honor..speculation at best with no way to prove the assertation
and then Dave goes into crystal ball mode when he sez...
*In the face of terrorism, every abuse we've seen from the Bush administration would have come from a Democrat administration just as certainly,*
no way you can prove that, so again..speculation at best...
stick to arguing based on facts and not soothsaying, Dave
yer much better at that, and you make better points that way...what i Quoted here shows the worst way to fram a discussion and does neither *side* any good when anyone indulges in it
just a Thought
Excelsior?
14 - Taloran
Dave, thanks for the well-thought-out answers. I disagree that Mr. Bush is better than the alternative, because I have trouble believing that each and every Democratic politician, had he been in the Oval Office the last few years, would have made equally poor decisions regarding national policy and had such contempt for the American people as Mr. Bush appears to have. If you're strictly speaking of Mr. Bush's most recent opponent as "the alternative," we'll never know what blunders Mr. Kerry might have made, or whether they would have had more or less drastic consequences than those of Mr. Bush.
At the very least, the policies of Mr. Bush have significantly decreased the international regard with which the US is held, although I believe that a significant number of conservative-leaning folks couldn't give a damn about international regard, viewing the US as an island, a world unto itself. At the very least, Mr. Bush appears to have lost his way - he appears to have forgotten the reasons he espoused for going into Iraq in the first place, and to have largely forgotten that there's a spot of trouble in Afghanistan as well. At the very least, he has pandered to the religious right to the detriment of science, and to the oil companies and other big business to the detriment of the environment in which future generations must be raised. At the very least, he has raised the specter of US troops suffering humiliation and torture should they be captured, because of his willingness to do the same to those we capture. At the very least, there is a question about the propriety of the actions of some of his close political allies, campaign contributors and confidants.
Whether Kerry would have made similar or more damning decisions is unknown. I am of the "Throw the Bums Out" anti-incumbent camp, and believe that any change come November has a good chance to improve things on Capitol Hill, even if it's just by making the new guys nervous. I also believe that the next President, regardless of party, has very high odds of making fewer drastic blunders than this one has.
15 - steve
since when does someone from South Africa criticizing America have a valued opinion. If he doesn't like it here...he can leave.
16 - zingzing
that's what america's about, steve. you come here so you can have an opinion about your government. that's like saying someone who grew up in california cannot have an opinion on living in chicago.
if you don't like it, you're the one who should leave.
17 - Taloran
Comment #16 from Steve is precisely the kind of knee-jerk, one line response I find to be less than valuable. It also reiterates the "If you don't like it here, leave" argument used so frequently by people on BlogCritics when they have nothing of merit to add to the conversation. It further convinces me that "significant number of conservative-leaning folks couldn't give a damn about international regard, viewing the US as an island, a world unto itself," as I stated in the immediately preceding comment.
18 - Taloran
Additionally, criticizing the President, Congress, or other political entities is not the same as dissing America or the American way of life. A couple of quotes by some very wise people:
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
19 - Baronius
Taloran, I think you've got it backwards. It's not the average conservative that lacks an understanding of the world view of America. When critics of Bush say that "everyone" hates us today, they're failing to see the nuance of foreign policy.
Among the people who adore us:
- sections of Eastern Europe that remember what it's like to live under a tyrant, and are glad to help overthrow one
- battlegrounds like India, Indonesia, and Phillipines, who could be beacons of international prosperity or isolationist Sharia-ruled ruins
- Japan. They hate two things equally: Korea and being nuked.
- reform movements in North Africa and the Middle East (and, obviously, Afghanistan)
- Pacific and South American trading partners
- 45-49% of Ireland, England, Spain, and Italy
Just something to mull over.
20 - steve
All I am suggesting is...You didn't like the government in South Africa...You don't like the government here...So why dont you move along to North Korea and pick some rice in you olive green's. They could use another "common man." ...Or why dont you go play soccer next to a nuclear reactor with Mahmoud in Iran...maybe stand on a pedistal shaking a stick next to Hugo shouting "DIABLOOOO." You have it good here. Realize this. [Personal attack deleted]
21 - Bokkie
Juslike, man that leader is one scary weird oue! Just to think he lives in an illusion is freaky.
Looks like all the South Africans that immigrated to the US will be going home it seems safer there!
Tot later
Bokkie
22 - Quaim
Oui Steve what’s got up your goat? A bit touchy about the obvious truth? Your insults show someone forgot to give you a double digit IQ. Go back to school. You sound like a Christian in outback Utah ...perhaps you are. Adam is only teling you like it is! Sooo offended its funny!
23 - Taloran
Baronius, are you saying that the policies of the current administration have not significantly eroded the esteem of the United States in the international eye? That the US is currently seen in a better international light than it was, say, eight or twenty or forty years ago?
When I travelled Europe on three occasions two decades ago, I was universally welcomed and treated with congeniality and respect everywhere except Paris, because I was an American. I very much doubt that would be the case today.
Please note that I did not echo rabid Bush critics and say that "everyone" hates us, but rather stated that "the policies of Mr. Bush have significantly decreased the international regard with which the US is held." (#15) The love-it-or-leave-it-right-or-wrong, nationalistic, flag-waving mentality of commenters like Steve only serve to reinforce my belief that "a significant number of conservative-leaning folks" (#15) have a very insular, myopic worldview. I did not state that that is a universal flaw of Republicans, or anything like it, or that no Democrats, Greens or Libertarians have a similar political myopia.
Dissent, and the right to voice one's dissent, are American traditions and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, inalienable to the American way of life. Those who seek to stifle that dissent, not the ones who practice that right, are the ones who should find another place to live.
24 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, all I have to base my opinion about the presidency on is the people who have been president and what I know about the people who might have been president. Technically it's speculation, but it's all I've got to answer the question with, and all I've got to base my opinion on. I voted for someone better than Bush, Kerry or Gore in both of the last two elections. They got about 1.5% of the vote. So my second choice was and still would be Bush, because I have seen no evidence to convince me that Kerry would not have been significantly worse. On reflection, Gore at least had the potential to have been better, but again I've got no evidence that would convince me of that for certain.
The rest of this is for Taloran.
Dave, thanks for the well-thought-out answers. I disagree that Mr. Bush is better than the alternative, because I have trouble believing that each and every Democratic politician, had he been in the Oval Office the last few years, would have made equally poor decisions regarding national policy and had such contempt for the American people as Mr. Bush appears to have.
Ah, but they didn't OFFER us every Democrat politician. If I could pick and choose with some magical power I certainly could have found people better than Bush in either party or out of the general populace.
If you're strictly speaking of Mr. Bush's most recent opponent as "the alternative," we'll never know what blunders Mr. Kerry might have made, or whether they would have had more or less drastic consequences than those of Mr. Bush.
We know that Kerry supported very much the same policies as Bush and shows remarkably poor judgment in many other areas. That's certainly reason to have expected as bad a performance or likely an even worse performance from him as we got from Bush. In hindsight I still can't see any reason to have voted for Kerry. As I mentioned above, Gore might have been worth considering. But truthfully, I'd do again what I did in both of the last two elections and given the choice between two relatively worthless options I'd vote Libertarian.
At the very least, the policies of Mr. Bush have significantly decreased the international regard with which the US is held, although I believe that a significant number of conservative-leaning folks couldn't give a damn about international regard, viewing the US as an island, a world unto itself.
There's something to be said for that position. Any person in a foreign nation who is dumb enough to form their opinion of the US based solely on the War in Iraq or Bush foreign policy in general is a fool and not to be taken seriously. They're exactly like the people here in the US who make fun of the French - and with even better reason - for being utterly incapable of forming an effective foreign or domestic policy.
At the very least, Mr. Bush appears to have lost his way - he appears to have forgotten the reasons he espoused for going into Iraq in the first place, and to have largely forgotten that there's a spot of trouble in Afghanistan as well. At the very least, he has pandered to the religious right to the detriment of science, and to the oil companies and other big business to the detriment of the environment in which future generations must be raised.
And none of this is one bit different from what I would have expected from any politically experienced politician in the same situation.
At the very least, he has raised the specter of US troops suffering humiliation and torture should they be captured, because of his willingness to do the same to those we capture.
Now this arguement is utter bullshit. Since the US troops captured by terrorists are going to be tortured and then murdered regardless of what we do, using that possibility as an argument against Bush's torture policy - which, by the way, bans torture - is completely disingenuous.
At the very least, there is a question about the propriety of the actions of some of his close political allies, campaign contributors and confidants.
Show me one president where that is not the case in the last 200 years.
Whether Kerry would have made similar or more damning decisions is unknown. I am of the "Throw the Bums Out" anti-incumbent camp, and believe that any change come November has a good chance to improve things on Capitol Hill, even if it's just by making the new guys nervous. I also believe that the next President, regardless of party, has very high odds of making fewer drastic blunders than this one has.
The next president might benefit from the lessons of the Bush administration, the most obvious of which is to explain what the fuck you're doing and why you're doing it constantly so that you, rather than your opponents or the media get to define the significance of your policies. Setting and implementing policy in secret may spare you some short term criticism but it's incredibly stupid in the long run.
Dave
25 - Nelson Lennon
Keep up the good work.
I will not be satisfied until Bush & Co are behind bars.