Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 14, 2005.
does that count as a mea culpa?
Wouldn't "I resign" have been more appropriate? He's admitting that 30,000 civilians died because of his "mistake".
I don't think he should have linked faulty intelligence to the information gathering agencies, though their intelligence isn't all that great either. He seems to be passing the buck when it's been a strong suspicion with everyone I've known that he wanted to go to Iraq even before he was elected.
first he takes people's questions, then he's (sort of) admitting responsibility...what gives?
The quote's kind of out of context. He's kind of sort of taking responsibility for the intelligence failure, but he still says it was the right decision to go to war, because the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein. How he comes to that conclusion is beyond me though.
Unbelievable. This guy can't speak the truth to save his life. Well, I guess if he did, he'd be screwed.
Nothing new here. Bush & Co. have been trying to muddy the waters about Iraq since the beginning.
From the public's point of view, there have been three main versions of how we got to where we are. In increasing order of accuracy, they are:
(1) There were WMD, and anyone who says there weren't is either woefully naive or a Saddam sympathizer.
(2) The intelligence was faulty, therefore we need to "fix" the CIA...but it wasn't Bush's fault.
(3) The intelligence was accurate. It offered a number of grave qualifications about the supposed WMD. Bush chose to ignore those qualifications because he was gonna go into Iraq come hell or high water and needed a (seemingly) plausible excuse.
Now. Having utterly failed to sell anyone on excuse (1), he's been regrouping for a long time now around excuse (2). Problem is, many people have been gravitating directly to (3). Bush has still been trying to push (2), but it's not really selling.
This latest "admission" and acceptance of responsibility are not built around (3). They're designed to give credence to excuse (2). Essentially it's saying, "Okay, you guys didn't like my first lie. If I sound contrite enough, will you buy a different lie?"
You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.
The local Fox station said tonight that the president took full responsibility for the war in Iraq. They also hinted that tomorrow is going to be completely different, whatever that means.
I still don't see where he took any responsibility...just that the president is responsible for things. You know what I mean.
NO FREAKIN WAY! how many more years till we get a new president
I've been watching him on the Daily Show. I'm pretty sure he's completely disconnected from reality. Either that, or high. Maybe both.
Does he really think it's a good idea to rag on the CIA though?
Bush: we went to war on faulty intelligence
That statement is true,only its his personal intelligence thats the problem.
Is this a joke? we have how many of our boys & girls dead? I dont see any Democracy in Iraq with extreme Islam all over the place. Bush was wrong for going to war to get One guy named Saddam. There had to be better ways in taking him down. 1 bomb or bullet is all it should have taken. Anyways Iran is the next problem.
I know it sounds bad but is possible that the country needs a ruler like Saddam. He was a bad guy the torture and everything cant be excused, but in a country like Iraq filled with numerous factions all at eachothers throats you need a iron handed kind of ruler. Unfortuneately they can kinda be mean. But whats to say democracy can work in a current day Iraq, our type of goverment tends to fall apart when the president gets sniped every tuesday.
There is an argument that political stability is more important than anything else. Would you rather live in a more or less politically stable dictatorship that keeps the trains running, or one of those countries that has a revolution every year? Let's look at Pakistan - better off with Musharraf than without him? I think so. Then when you have stability in place, you can slowly transition to a democracy. I think people in developing countries understand this a little better than people in the west, who generally seem to think that democracy cures all ills. (In other words, if democracy is so great, what's wrong with Mexico and the Philippines?)
as you know, you go to war with the intelligence you have, not the intelligence you might want or wish to have at a later time.
No surprise here.
Bush eats breakfast on faulty intelligence.