The Two Faces Of George
By on Jun 29th, 2005 at 4:48 am
The Two Faces Of George
President Bush invoked 9/11 five times last night. He refereneced Osama bin Laden twice.
It was a desperate attempt to imply a link between the increasingly deadly war in Iraq and the attacks on American soil in 2001. America knows that’s not true. Actually, so does President Bush.
In a press conference on 1/31/03, asked if he believed there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, President Bush admitted, “I can’t make that claim.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Don't you think 9/11 is a defining moment in American history? If it is, isn't it appropriate for a President to talk about how we are dealing with the emerging threats of terrorism and countries that harbor them?
I think everyone, including the President, should talk about 9/11 and the effort to systematically dismantle and destroy the terror networks.
If you are confident in your position and can defend it intelligently, I encourage you to call conservative radio talk shows and debate it, like Michael Medved @ 1-800-955-1776 from 3pm-6pm EST.
June 29th, 2005 at 5:20 amMore criticisms of Fort Bragg speech at http://dearkitty.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=660076
June 29th, 2005 at 5:28 amWhether or not 911 is a defining moment is not the point.
The nation of Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The continued reference to 911 in conjunction with this war is deceptive and manipulative. Iraq was invaded because Bush "knew" Saddam had WMD, not because of any connection with Saudi terrorists. As the Downing Street Memos make clear, the WMD claim was a deliberate falsehood by Bushco.
Lastly, the notion that freeptards are interested in "debate" is laughable. People disconnected from reality cannot debate.
June 29th, 2005 at 7:19 amSimon-
Take your GOP shilling elsewhere. Everytime Bush gets nailed for blatantly using 9/11 as a crutch when he is danger of losing support, you shills all toe the same GOP line:
9/11 is part of history, and therefore can be spoken about.
Of course, you know well that there is a chasm of difference between discussing 9/11 from a historical perspective and falsely invoking it for the specific purpose of scaring people and making a false link between it and Iraq (which we ALL know was a notion rejected by the 9/11 Commission).
If you are confident in your position and can defend it intelligently, I encourage you to call Al Franken or some other liberal talk show host, where of course you will be torn to shreds just as any progressive or liberal would be treated by Michael Medved.
Now rung along and play on Captains Quarters.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:05 amI think that we can all agree that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and end any debate on that. However, in our response to what happened on 9/11, we identified Iraq as a threat to our shores and since Saddam did not comply with the U.N. resolutions, he was taken down.
There are big differences between this war and Vietnam:
1) We were attacked first and fourmost on U.S. soil.
2) Our forces are from all volunteer sources.
3) The loss of life is significantly less but it should remind all of us that freedom is never free.
For the United States to cut and run now, would be a huge mistake. The "insurgents" which are mostly foreigners from other countries, would win. We need to make sure that the Iraqi military is strong and able to face down these threats. Do I admit that we made mistakes in fighting the war. Yes. Every war has been fought with mistakes. That is how we learn. I support the President in making these tough decisions. Does anyone honestly believe that a President Gore would have the guts to face down terrorists with anything other than a warrant for their arrest?
June 29th, 2005 at 9:44 amDon’t you think 9/11 is a defining moment in American history?
Actually 9/11 didn't change all that much, though Cheney would love to have you believe it did. It just meant we needed to be more concerned with terror attacks at home. And even though many of the protections were in place, they were ignored and left dormant by Bush, while FBI looked for whores in New Orleans, Cheney divied up the ME, and Bush rewarded his base with cash out the wazoo.
9/11 could have probably been lessened and maybe even prevented. The hostility to us from Muslims would be non-existant had we used the 70's oil crisis to initiate another Apollo project wrt energy. They would have also had to develop something besides the dollar based oil economies that are now our major threats, which are really in their last throes.
Reagan quashed it, and Bush/Oil and Cheney/Oil wouldn't go against the grain. PNAC developed the justification; personal greed and social ignorance glued it together.
America is better than that, but we may never really know, thanks to the flavorful cool-aid and its thirsty drinkers.
June 29th, 2005 at 10:30 amYou have to ask yourself: What exactly is His Fraudulency trying to hide in invoking 9/11 to justify what amounts to an outright RAHOWA packaged as a Holy War Against International Terrorism?
June 29th, 2005 at 10:30 amLast night's speech was nothing more than more of the same old bla bla that he's spouted all along. The troops did a great job of following their orders, by nodding their heads, that was the best part.
June 29th, 2005 at 10:43 amWasn't able to watch last night, and I'm a little late this morning checking the commentary, but might I suggest an addition to the critique of the speech?
Sending the wrong message:
Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis – who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.
"The insurgency will be put down by the Iraqi people over time. It won't be won by the coalition forces. Foreigners don't defeat insurgencies" -- Donald Rumsfeld, June 27, 2005
It would send the wrong message to our troops – who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve.
"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." George W. Bush, May 1, 2003 speech below banner proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
And it would send the wrong message to the enemy – who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed – and not a day longer.
"Over the past year, the Pentagon has reportedly been building up to 14 'enduring' bases across the country  long-term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely... A high-ranking military officer in the Middle East says that the Pentagon envisions a small number of bases in Iraq that 'in no way approximates what we have there now.' He insists that 'we are not planning to occupy the country. We’re talking about a small, unobtrusive presence  it could simply be facilities that give you the capability to come in and out.'" -- March/April, 2005 Mother Jones
June 29th, 2005 at 10:47 amTo you neocons who are still begging for our support,
June 29th, 2005 at 11:28 amFORGET ABOUT IT!
9-11 WAS ORCHESTRATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!
GET A CLUE ALREADY!
IF THE STORY YOU ARE BEING TOLD WERE TRUE, BIN LADEN WOULD HAVE BEEN CAPTURED BY NOW!
HE IS LIVING COMFORTABLY IN THE BUSHIE HOTEL AND CONTINUES TO RECIEVE DYALYSIS TO SURVIVE.
WAKE UP AMERICA...9-11 WAS ORDERED AND PAYED FOR BY THE BUSHIE ADMINISTRATION AND THAT IS A FACT!
"...since Saddam did not comply with the U.N. resolutions, he was taken down.
There are big differences between this war and Vietnam:
1) We were attacked first and fourmost on U.S. soil.
2) Our forces are from all volunteer sources.
3) The loss of life is significantly less but it should remind all of us that freedom is never free."
Sorry to quote all that, but you inconsistancy is rival of that of BushCo's (big surprise). Who told the inspectors to leave Iraq when Saddam complied with inspections? Not Saddam, but Bush because bombing was to start. This guy begins with "I think that we can all agree that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and end any debate on that", then gives his #1 response. What? I'm not even going to touch the "feelgood fallback" of his #3. Wow.
June 29th, 2005 at 11:31 amI love how liberals or democrats or progressives or whatever you want to call yourselves these days are so quick to criticize what the Bush administration is doing these days. However, I have yet to see any alternative plan other than involving our "so called allies" in solving the terrorist threat. Can I just get a simple answer as to how your party would have handled this situation?
June 29th, 2005 at 11:54 amHow many times do you have to hear it Randy? Can you not comprehend what we are saying here.
We would never have attacked Iraq in the first place, duh.
And now that Bushie has waged an illegal war, we would admit the mistakes he has made and move our troops out.
Is this so hard to comprehend? Is your neocon brain functioning at all?
June 29th, 2005 at 12:21 pmSusan,
You are missing my point, what would you have done to prevent another attack? Prosecute them? Use harsh language? Liberals seem to enjoy the freedom we have today, but don't want to have to pay for it. Since there hasn't been another attack like 9/11 under the current administration, I'd have to say they are doing a great job protecting us. If Clinton had responded differently to the first attack on the WTC, would we have had 9/11?
If liberals succeed, which I don't think they will, and we withdraw from Iraq too early, I hope you can live with yourself if we go through another 9/11 type attack.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:29 pmTo prevent another attack you must impeach Bushie afterall he is the one who attacked America. Get a clue already.
P.S. if your so secure with homeland security then why are you so afraid?
June 29th, 2005 at 12:36 pmAnd where is Osama Bin Laden Randy, he claims to have attacked us..Are you that stupid or what?
Just briefly, what Al Gore, progressives, and real Republicans would have done is find and punish those responsible for 9-11. Bush's plans so far have been delusional at best. His so-called war on terror is unfocused. There is a war on terror being fought mostly by the CIA and FBI, while Iraq is a strategically costly and unnesessary side trip that has diverted manpower and resources away from the war that liberals, progressives, and real republicans would like to see fought. Bush's war is like a fine mist that scatters everywhere, creates more terrorists, and whose sole point seems to be perpetual war. My problem with Bush, and many liberals is that Bush is so ineffectual and incompetent. FDR won WW II in less time then Bush has taken to get Iraq under control.
If America wants security for itself and the rest of the world, its time to for a better plan and some competent leaders that care more about America then they do about scoring vanity points in a speech as shallow as the AWOL coward that gave it.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:42 pmI agree with 2 things Bush said last night:
“We must not forget the lesson of September 11th.� The lesson we must recall is that Bush likes to grease every bitter pill with September 11th to get Americans to choke it down. But do not forget, Iraq and 9/11 are two completely different and unrelated things. The only connection between the 2 is the phony line drawn by the Bush administration.
“We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again.� I fear the lies told by Bush that got us into this war will strike again if we don’t confront them now.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:47 pmRandy,
Please, come up with a logical argument.
"There are big differences between this war and Vietnam:
1) We were attacked first and fourmost on U.S. soil..."
Not by Iraq. Say it with me. The analogy that sums it up best is if we were attacked by Cuba and we bombed Peru.
"Does anyone honestly believe that a President Gore would have the guts"
...to actually go to Viet Nam?... to not hide in a hole in the ground in Nebraska when shit hits the fan?... That argument is foolish when Rove uses it or any of its variants; you sound foolish repeating it.
"Can I just get a simple answer as to how your party would have handled this situation?"
I can't answer for everyone, but using this administrations actions as a guide, I would hope it would not involve starting a war of choice in a country that was OBVIOUSLY not a threat to our country, spending/wasting hundreds billions on "nation building," pissing off everyone that was on our side four years ago, and, oh yeah, how about catching bin Laden? Wasn't that the point (or at least part)of the whole Afghanistan operation? And I would hope they would allow a thorough investigation of the day that conservatives cite when all else fails, and maybe take serioulsy any recommendations of said investigation that might make all of us safer.
June 29th, 2005 at 12:50 pmThe reason why we haven't been hit again is airlines now know that terrorists might hijack planes and crash them into buildings. So security is tightened and flight crew and passengers are more aware of hijackings. It's common sense. Bush hasn't done jack. I still don't see how Bush gets no blame for 9/11 but credit for no attacks after 9/11.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:06 pmI cant believe what i am hearing about bush who does tell the crap. why would we believe what is going on about terroist and the iraq. The truth is bush have tolded LIES to america people that has harm already. do you know why middle east HATE america because the polictial is just BULLSH%T all the time how can you PROVE that. what i have learn alot about Sept 11 (it not terriost it not iraq) it own by BUSH because he want WTC pull down because of Financial problems it no point to pull wtc down, THINK TWICE as remember why Medicare, social security gone down, why oil fuel etc gone up because BUSH dont care about people suffering for it and he want $$$ his head and he wants all $$$$ for it, also bush have BLAME Bin Laden and Blame Iraq because of this. Iraq didnt start the war before and after sept 11 who order that. WHO order against BIN LADEN it was fact BUSH did it was his IDEA. because he doesnt want US people to know what is going on in fact the world wont stand his side because they dont want to be his friend and he started the Sept 11 also and ask for people from the world to be his side to be friend. he had Australia and UK to be his side BUSH did took the power of the world no one wants his POWER. BUSH is greedy bastard now how many times has BUSH told people in the world LIES how many times it fact 1,000% LIES LIES LIES LIES he would have repeat it he lies about his AWOL from military service he lied about drugs he was involved. he lied about sept 11, he lied about war, he lied about social security and medical and school, he lied JUST EVERYTHING, i still dont understand why stupid people would have VOTE for his 2nd presidency again remember the word said WHO CAN YOU TRUST (it was John HOWARD PM australia that john words that he try to help bush to win it did) so now he is going to play the game again WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN something more damage like sept 11 more people will die again it not terriost plot the attack US it was BUSH idea. THNINK ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY NOT BLOODY BUSH DONT DAMMIT LISTEN HIS BULLSH&T TALKS. he is all about $$$$$$$$.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:16 pmBravo!
June 29th, 2005 at 2:32 pmAs the polls show that Bushie is losing his power, plan for another attack. Hope it's a red state this time.
[Liberals] are quick to criticize what the Bush administration is doing these days...how would your party have handled this situation?
That's like: "Um, Dad, thanks for letting me use the car last night. I'm sorry I got drunk and crashed it. When are you going to fix it, I gotta go enlist tomorrow?"
Here's some ideas for you - in chronological order of what we shouldn't have done:
1) don't invade Iraq
2) don't go in with minimal troops
3) don't leave the weapons caches unguarded
4) dont' fire a 400,000 man standing army - who are using those weapons to kill our guys
5) don't inflict payback in Fallujah for 4 dumass contractors
6) don't reject aid from all other countries cuz it's "my way or the highway"
7) don't keep sending our troops out with minimal armor and support
There were hundreds more bad decisions made, but your willful ignorance will never let them enlighten your thought. Gulp, gulp, gulp............
June 29th, 2005 at 3:23 pmDon't Let Bush Change the Subject
Last night President Bush tried to rescue his failed Iraq policy in a nationally televised address by connecting the Iraq war to the war on terror. He is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11—implying that Iraq at...
June 29th, 2005 at 3:37 pmSo far no one has answered my question:
What would you have our response to 9/11 be to the world? I don't want to hear again what we shouldn't have done either. If you can't come up with a decent plan, then you have no room to criticize.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:48 pmRandy, our response to 9/11 should have been to find those responsible for it. Did you forget about Osama Bin Laden? We should be bringing him to justice. We're not going to find him in Iraq, so why are we there? You do realize that Iraq and 9/11 are not related, don't you?
June 29th, 2005 at 4:38 pmRandy you ignorant slut...
There are several appropriate response to 9/11, and some of these would have been:
- Go after those actually responsible for 9/11 (Hint: Saudi Arabia would have been a better place to look than Iraq)
- Go into Afghanistan with the same force and energy that we diverted into our little Iraqi expedition
- Make sure that we focused on the actual war on terror (Hint: Not use it as an excuse to do other things)
Are you sensing a pattern? I'll give you a clue - NONE of our appropriate responses should have included Iraq.
Let me repeat that so it can sink into your skull.
None of our appropriate responses to 9/11 should have included Iraq.
June 29th, 2005 at 6:54 pmRandy,
One thing I would have done right after 9-11 if, I were W's shoes. I would have been to actually persued Osama and the Talaban into Pakistan. If the Pakistanies didn't like it I would have invited the Indian army to come up from the south and let them clean the Pakistanies clocks and take whatever they wanted. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the real culprits behind 9-11 we should have turned both countries into pieces of bombed out radiated glass. Sadam was a piece of shit but he had the only terriost free zone on the planet (that includes the US... remember the twin towers being attacked by terror cells within the US?) There was one terror camp Sadam could not get to in the north thriving under our no fly-zone. So W lied us into a war with Iraq he can damn well lie us out by declaring again "mission accomplished". pull our troops out and attack our real adversaries. Oh by the way I'm way to old for active service any more and have done my bit. How about all of you freepers put your asses where your mouths are join up and pull flightsuits and the country 's ass out of this mess. Red
June 29th, 2005 at 8:45 pmHey red, the Pakis would nuke India. The Pakis built nukes while clintoon diddled and the UN fiddled. If youre looking for osama, think iran. As for your other mumbo jumbo, you are wrong. As for your call to join up, who do you think is joining? Supporters of the war, or peaceniks?
Now I've posted this before, and I know it goes right over some of your heads, but there are more than a few on here who are just being intellectually dishonest about the subject. We invaded n. Africa to fight the germans. The germans didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor, and no n. African countries did either. Was Al Qaida in Iraq before we invaded? Yes, they were there, that is a fact.
June 29th, 2005 at 11:11 pmSome of you here would be against war for any reason, some of you just don't understand what "global war on terror" means, and some are enemies of the United States. The bottom line is you are undermining the war effort, you will have to look in your hearts to find your motives. I can respect someone who is anti war, any war, though I disagree with you on the grounds that the ability to publicly hold an opinion that is anti war is a luxury given you in a free society by war itself, making you naive but with good intentions. To those of you who just are in over your heads, making fools of yourselves spouting ridiculous assertions you can never back up or defend, I say, please learn some history or get a hobby. So to our enemies, those of you who just hate the United States, and you know who you are, and deep inside you know that that rage is all you have, and one day it will consume you. Enjoy.
Hey Randy,
Check out the 9 suggestions to Bush by Biden and Kerry on what he should do pertaining to Iraq. Here are three of them:
1) The President heads to Europe this weekend. He needs to bring home more commitments from our allies to shore up Iraq's borders, invest more in reconstruction and do more training of Iraqi troops. A secure and stable Iraq is in the best interest of every nation across Europe and the Middle East.
2) Send a message across the Middle East that Iraq's neighbor countries must do more to stop the rise of terrorism in Iraq. We need countries like Saudi Arabia to keep their commitment to help pay for reconstruction efforts in Iraq so the Iraqi people get electricity, water and better roads.
We also need help from Iraq's neighbors in shoring up the borders so foreign fighters and terrorists can't get in and can't get out. The President needs to take his tough message to the region and enlist support for our mission. The best way to stop the growth of terrorism is by enlisting more Arab allies.
3) Truly honor our troops' sacrifices in Iraq by immediately covering the one billion dollar shortfall in funding for veterans care this year here at home and increasing funding for armor and necessary supplies for our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is that good enough for you? I doubt it, but some plans are better than no plans or failed plans.
And fake, just admit that it is you that hates America.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:33 pmfree ringtone verizon
free ringtone verizon We thought that of all the painless breastings to the Eternal Twiss's that leadi
October 4th, 2005 at 8:28 am