WASHINGTON, Aug. 21, 2006
Bush: War 'Straining' American Psyche
But President Says He Will Not Change Course In Iraq Or Shy From Debate
-
Play CBS Video Video Bush Holds Firm On Iraq President Bush repeatedly told reporters that he will not pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. Bill Plante has more.
-
-
President Bush speaks during his first news conference in the new temporary White House pressroom, Monday, Aug. 21, 2006, in Washington. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
-
President Bush speaks in the White House Conference Center across from the White House grounds Monday, Aug. 21, 2006 in Washington. (AP)
-
-
Interactive Mideast Conflict Events, key players and a history of the world's most unstable region.
-
Interactive Bush Presidency The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
He said he would not question the patriotism of someone who disagreed with him — although Vice President Dick Cheney said recently the Democratic primary election victory of anti-war candidate Ned Lamont over incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, a defender of the war, might encourage "the al Qaeda types."
But Mr. Bush said he would stay out of that particular election, Plante reports.
President Bush opened his nearly hour-long news conference by calling for quick deployment of an international force to help uphold the fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. "The need is urgent," Mr. Bush said. He said the United States was increasing humanitarian and reconstruction aid to more than $230 million.
European countries expected to provide the bulk of peacekeepers have delayed committing troops. France disappointed allies by merely doubling its contingent of 200.
The president also said the United States would seek a new U.N. resolution on disarming Hezbollah in southern Lebanon but he sounded doubtful about achieving results soon on the ground. "Hopefully, over time, Hezbollah will disarm," the president said.
Mr. Bush also:
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 38 Comments"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." (John Stuart Mill)
emsprater: You are fresh air. Thank you for being strongly conservative and respecting the President and his role.
When we got involved in IRAQ we did it to help the IRAQI people. They had begged the the UNITED STATES to intervene on their behalf.
I agree with emsprater that the oil and HALLIBURTON argument is for those who are copying the words of left wing radicals and they don't really know the issues. If this obnoxious group of people would study the issues instead of mouth the words they would learn something. The left wingers have dummied down the average liberal thereby allowing their lies about the President and his policies to take root in these empty headed fools.
Posted by CarlyLaine at 05:47 AM : Aug 22, 2006
Read the article (link below) if you care to know why/how my opinions are formed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
Adolf Hitler said:
"What good fortune for governments that people do not think."
Herman Goering said:
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
Joseph Goebbels said:
%u201CIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.%u201D
That's kind of wrong. Let's step back a little. We the citizens have I think a very similar idea - peace and justice prevaling. That's what we might call the middle class ethic. Pax and Justicae.
But, that's a middle class ethic. There are people who are not middle class. People who don't want peace, particularily, they want power, wealth, growth for their investments, orgies of greed and lust, change, chaos, injustice. These are the very rich and the very poor. Your friend in office, despite his sales job, has never been middle class in his life. Never,for example, held a job except for ownership of a baseball team his rich friends gave him. Letting New Orleans die, for example, is typical arrogant Nero style. Middle class guys roll up their sleeves and fix problems.
I must admit I saw a liberal on TV yesterday, and wanted to puke. Again, a person without middle class values.
So let's stand together and not be divided by the super wealthy, the inheritance crowd. War generally doesn't lead to peace, it leads to more war, deeper angers, and more violence in a cycle. That said, the elitists liberals are certainly not for peace, which is why they never spoke up.
Typical liberal. I can see you turning beet red jumping up and down and drooling.
They call the truth a lie and a lie the truth. What FOOLS these LIBERALS be.
ourtomorrows is obviously a well-read individual.
No one wants war. But in order to have PEACE there must be war.
There was an attempt on the WORLD TRADE CENTER when CLINTON was President. He tried to use the law to control the terrorists.
The COLE was bombed, he did nothing.
I wonder what you (liberals) would do if someone held you at knifepoint, cut you up just a little and slapped your face. You'd stand there and let them do it. Because you want peace.
Clinton did nothing. Bush says NO WAY, we'll go after the terrorists and the terroristic regimes. At least he didn't roll over in the name of peace.
President Bush is a man of good character and morals. In my lifetime I have seen four fantastic presidents-Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.
When we got involved in IRAQ we did it to help the IRAQI people. They had begged the the UNITED STATES to intervene on their behalf.
I agree with emsprater that the oil and HALLIBURTON argument is for those who are copying the words of left wing radicals and they don't really know the issues. If this obnoxious group of people would study the issues instead of mouth the words they would learn something. The left wingers have dummied down the average liberal thereby allowing their lies about the President and his policies to take root in these empty headed fools.
So, I gather you opposed the war to begin with,fine. But you also oppose us trying to help Iraq rebuild. Sooooooooo, for you what woudl be best is to just pull right out before the Iraqui government and army is strong enough to stand ontheir own, and let a bunch of Iranian backed terrorists help drive the country into civil war. So, what you are saying I guess is that it is okay for Iran to support bands of murderers but it is bad for the US to try to help the LEGALLY ELECTED Iraqui government gain the tools they need to protect their people. Maybe we should have left the Germans in the rubble of and just "waited to see" what would happen. Now, just a minute, something about Germany, what is it, oh yes, real democracy came to Germany and to an extent Japan as a result of World War I and II for Germany and World War II for Japan. And they are all the worse for it, having the second and third most powerful economies in the world must really suck.
Where exactly did you get this and what is the evidence that supports this claim?
4. You say--Iraq was only a stable country because of Saddam Hussein. He was, for lack of a better term, a common enemy for all the people. He was powerful enough to fend of attacks and keep the factions from attacking each other. U.S. troops have now taken on that "common enemy" role.
Which does not justify anything. One could point out that the bloodiest attacks in the last three months have been directed against other Iraquis, not against us.
5. You say--More "innocent" Iraqis have died in the last 3 years by American hands than would have by Saddam's. Where's the better life?
How could you possibly make this statement. You have no idea what Saddam would or would not have done.
6. You say--If Saddam is to be convicted of war crimes for keeping the country from an ethnic civil war, then we also need to posthumously convict Winston Churchill who committed the same acts as Saddam (gassing Kurds, political prisoners, etc) when Britain occupied Iraq.
Okay, no here you just cross the line. Comparing
Churchill to Hussein is ignorant and absurd. Were it not for Winston Churchill you my friend might be posting this in German, or actually wait, no, this type of thing would not exist.
You posted the following facts, but I have some questions
Facts:
1. You say--Iraq, and the entire middle-east region, is mired in social/religious turmoil and has been for millennia.
Eh, no. Actually, the middle east experienced periods of stability and relative peace over the course of the last 1000 years. There were decades, even centuries under the auspices of the Ottoman sultans in which the Middle East enjoyed relative calm and general domestic stability. You might try checking your history.
2. You say--Iraq had zero involvement in Sep. 11 attacks in the U.S.
That could very well be right. But, the papers being released under the freedom of information act of those seized by coalition forces seem to tell a somewhat different story. We will only know for sure when all have been released and examined. You can conclusively say that since all the evidence has not been full evaluated.
3. You say--Iraq had zero government support for any US directed "terrorism".
Again, the papers that are slowly coming out from the Hussein government seem to indicate connections and meetings between members of the Iraqui govt and the Al Quaeda leadership. I don't see how you can make such a statement when there is still so much evidence to be examined and processed.
1. Iraq, and the entire middle-east region, is mired in social/religious turmoil and has been for millennia.
2. Iraq had zero involvement in Sep. 11 attacks in the U.S.
3. Iraq had zero government support for any US directed "terrorism".
3. Iraq invaded Kuwait with the full fore-knowledge and stated indifference from the U.S.
4. Iraq was only a stable country because of Saddam Hussein. He was, for lack of a better term, a common enemy for all the people. He was powerful enough to fend of attacks and keep the factions from attacking each other. U.S. troops have now taken on that "common enemy" role.
5. More "innocent" Iraqis have died in the last 3 years by American hands than would have by Saddam's. Where's the better life?
6. If Saddam is to be convicted of war crimes for keeping the country from an ethnic civil war, then we also need to posthumously convict Winston Churchill who committed the same acts as Saddam (gassing Kurds, political prisoners, etc) when Britain occupied Iraq.
7. The "objective" Bush has stated for Iraq is untenable. You can not force "democracy" on a people, it must occur naturally from within. The only way democracy will flourish there is for us to leave and for the people to organically grow the democracy; if that's what they want/can tolerate.
If we don't stand up, who exactly will. France? Yes, they have been great during the Lebanon crisis, a whopping 400 troops for the International peace keeing force, wow, that sure is showing leadership! And all the French money already flowing into Lebanon to help rebuilding, oh, wait, sorry, my mistake, those are AMERICAN dollars not euros.
It is all well and good to bemoan US policy, hate the president, conjure up idiotic conspiracy theories, that is what all Americans have the freedom to do. But, people, maybe it is time for some of you to wake up from your dream world. We can't hide behind our oceans (we tried that in the 1930s, not so successful)anymore. Terrorism was alive and well before September 11, we just were not paying attention. Afghanistan and Iraq did not make it worse, just more visible.
"You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --
Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken."
Why are there no mentions in the story of this?
Where are the real journalists who will tackle this and research each and every time the Bush administration either implied, inferred or sent a subordinate to do it for them that Iraq was indeed tied to the 9-11 terrorists?
Why did we see Clinton say "I did not have *** with that woman" a million times, and not even a mention of this? NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED.
Must we be subjugated to "JonBenet 24/7" while America falls down around us under the leadership of this dolt?
What about it CBS? NO cahones?
There was,and still is one glaring problem with this war from the onset %u2013 A PLAN. The pres. has the tiger by the tail. Now what?
There is an under lying thing about this war. He lied to congress, and the American people to go to war, but why? The fact that Cheney was once chairman of the board of Halliburton, and Halliburton was awarded a sole source contract (no bidding took place), kind of makes you wonder. The pres. Himself is an oil man, along with daddy, therefore he benefits (financially) from this war. Where is the motive for resolving this war?
Get out? He has seen to it that we can%u2019t. I know two things for sure, the next president is set up for failure (he had better be strong). Also, we should pass a law stating that Texas oil men can never be elected president, or run for the presidential office, or be VP.
Nixon never lived in a bubble like this pres. does.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 38 Comments