[Face Ache]

Bush says war critics rewrite history
Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:08 PM ET
By Caren Bohan

TOBYHANNA, Pa (Reuters) - President George W. Bush ripped into Democratic critics of the Iraq war on Friday, charging them with trying to rewrite history by accusing the White House of manipulating intelligence before the war.


President Bush speaks to servicemen and women on Veterans Day in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, November 11, 2005. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Hey I only added the stigmata.

So many captions to choose from.

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." said Winston Churchill.

I don't think GWB will be so lucky. His story has holes in it.

[Area Man]

From the Rude Pundit:

President Bush - We Will Win This War That We Can't Ever Win:
The Rude Pundit's not sure, but did the President of the United States admit today, in his great and mighty Veterans Day speech, that going into Iraq ain't gonna do jackshit to stop Islamic fundamentalist hatred of America? Bush said, in answering his critics (like, you know, his own State Department) that going into Iraq has increased the amount of anger against us, "We were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001...[The hatred] existed before we were in Iraq, and it will exist after we're gone." [Quotes are approximate - no transcript yet.]

So, like, let's see if we've got this straight: Bush essentially stated that nothing will change for Americans because of our Iraqi venture. That wasn't off the cuff, that wasn't in answer to a question, that was his goddamned prepared speech. Yet, as he continues to say, we must stay the course. And that course would be to ensure that nothing changes for the United States, save the loss of thousands of lives, limbs, and minds, and, of course, our national identity and treasury.

If this is the opening salvo in a fight to regain the credibility Bush has lost, it was limp, like when you've had too much cocaine and you've told the hooker you paid good money for that you're gonna **** her so hard she'll forget every other john she's ever ****ed, but after you drop your pants you realize you can't get it up any more and you just end up flaccidly slapping the hooker in her face with your dangling dick until she just gets tired and leaves. What's more pathetic? That you couldn't get it up? That you had to hire the hooker? Or that the hooker got bored with your limp prick?

[ReggieX]

Got a surprize from my honey
Got a message from my girl
When she picked up a pen from beside her bed
And wrote me a scribbled note
Said she’d be coming back to see me
That she would be visiting real soon
Gonna get up from her long white bed
And leave this cold white room

We would once more live together
Go out on a lovin’ spree
Just like before the accident
My baby would look at me
I saw her sweet face trembling
As she tried to open her eyes
I jumped with the joy of a grateful boy
The day my baby gave me a surprize

[Rolling Bones]

"The Day GWB Made My Head Explode"

Take two aspirins but don't bother calling me in the morning.

I have to see someone with a mind fart induced speech impediment.

[DeathToWindows]

As usual... there's what there, two neurons and one synapse?

The whole idea of having a democratic system is to voice dissent when it is your view... the whole idea of claiming that speaking out against the war is aiding and abetting is simply silly. There is a difference between saying that the war is perhaps the greatest example of foolishness from his time in office and saying that the terrorists should be left alone because they're "not bad people".

Disclaimer: I vehemently oppose the war, but think the best thing to do to Al Quida and company would be something that makes them develop a fatal case of dead.

[Ron Goodman]

It was the same during the Vietnam war--the protestors were unpatriotic and helping the VC, Jane Fonda was "Hanoi Jane", yadda, yadda, yadda. Both were founded on a bunch of lies, neither Irag or Vietnam was any kind of a threat to us, and both got a lot of people killed for nothing.

[BlueSky]

I rarely can muster the tolerance to listen to Fuhrer Bozo, but I happened to be listening when his mouth farted forth the "rewriting history" thing. My head exploded as well. So now he owes me a head AND a country.

Somebody give the asshole a bj so we can impeach him.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

I rarely can muster the tolerance to listen to Fuhrer Bozo, but I happened to be listening when his mouth farted forth the "rewriting history" thing. My head exploded as well. So now he owes me a head AND a country.

Somebody give the asshole a bj so we can impeach him.

Don't mean to be rude, but you wouldn't be volunteering your services, would you?
jk

[marden]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

It was the same during the Vietnam war--the protestors were unpatriotic and helping the VC, Jane Fonda was "Hanoi Jane", yadda, yadda, yadda. Both were founded on a bunch of lies, neither Irag or Vietnam was any kind of a threat to us, and both got a lot of people killed for nothing.

Does any of the al qaeda being in paradise worth the price if only 19 were responsible for 9/11?

[Y3a]

<< The whole idea of having a democratic system is to voice dissent when it is your view... the whole idea of claiming that speaking out against the war is aiding and abetting is simply silly. >>

Actually you are WRONG.. The US is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. It is still wrong to say some stuff against the government. Sedition is serious. You put who you want in as Congressman and senator. THEY do the talking. If you don't like them vote for someone else next time, and THEY WILL DO THE TALKING.

Viet Nam was not in and of itself a threat, but was thought that we had to stop the Domino effect of little countries being overrun by commies and destablized and then becoming commies themselves. You must have been reading a revisionist book or somesuch.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Actually you are WRONG.. The US is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. It is still wrong to say some stuff against the government. Sedition is serious. You put who you want in as Congressman and senator. THEY do the talking. If you don't like them vote for someone else next time, and THEY WILL DO THE TALKING.

No, that's a dictatorship.

A democracy is where EVERYBODY gets to point their finger and criticize IN PUBLIC.

If that didn't happen, nobody would ever know about the options available for voting, let alone the advantages/disadvantages of each of those choices.

Public criticism (and a free press) is the second-most fundamental aspect of democracy (second only to actual voting).



It is sad and pathetic testament to the times that your propaganda machine can lead you to believe otherwise.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< The whole idea of having a democratic system is to voice dissent when it is your view... the whole idea of claiming that speaking out against the war is aiding and abetting is simply silly. >>

Actually you are WRONG.. The US is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. It is still wrong to say some stuff against the government. Sedition is serious. You put who you want in as Congressman and senator. THEY do the talking. If you don't like them vote for someone else next time, and THEY WILL DO THE TALKING.

Viet Nam was not in and of itself a threat, but was thought that we had to stop the Domino effect of little countries being overrun by commies and destablized and then becoming commies themselves. You must have been reading a revisionist book or somesuch.

You are right, as usual; the World should submit to your democracy.

After all, you are #1!

[Ron Goodman]

Viet Nam was not in and of itself a threat, but was thought that we had to stop the Domino effect of little countries being overrun by commies and destablized and then becoming commies themselves. You must have been reading a revisionist book or somesuch.

Other than going to war with Cambodia to remove the Khamer Rouge, which little countries did Viet Nam destabilize? No dominoes fell, lots of people died for nothing, and just last week new information came out about how the intelligence was cooked in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which nobody really believed at the time anyway. I'd say the parallels with Irag II are pretty striking.

[Monique]

What do you expect from someone who has no brain.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< The whole idea of having a democratic system is to voice dissent when it is your view... the whole idea of claiming that speaking out against the war is aiding and abetting is simply silly. >>

Actually you are WRONG.. The US is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. It is still wrong to say some stuff against the government. Sedition is serious. You put who you want in as Congressman and senator. THEY do the talking. If you don't like them vote for someone else next time, and THEY WILL DO THE TALKING.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

-- U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1

This amendment would be totally unnecessary if you are right and "THEY WILL DO THE TALKING". Fortunately for us, you are wrong. We are not supposed to shut up and let someone else speak for us.

Here's another interesting quote:

As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.

This speech was given on Dec. 19, 1941, only 12 days after Pearl Harbor. By a conservative Republican senator, no less - Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft. There was nothing wrong with his speech then, just as there is nothing unpatriotic or wrong with speaking in opposition to the government today, even in times of war.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Actually you are WRONG.

Actually, he is right. Speech is not, and cannot be made, a crime in the US. This doesn't mean you can't commit other crimes with speech, of course. For example, the crime in the famous case where someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the crime of reckless endangerment of the people in the theater. If the prosecution can't show reckless endangerment -for example, if there really was a fire in the theater- then the law can't touch the person who said it.

It is still wrong to say some stuff against the government.

Morally? Maybe, maybe not. Legally, however, it is not.

Sedition is serious.

The crime of sedition does not exist in US law. This isn't for lack of trying; there have been several attempts and a few actual passages of anti-sedition laws, dating all the way back to the second President of the US. However, they have all been struck down as unconstitutional. Which is just as well; freedom of speech must be held as absolute and sacrosanct, or it is meaningless. It's not free speech if you can only say some things.

[G Barnett]

The day my head exploded? That was the day I learned I shared my initials with Dubya.... I doubt I'll ever live down THAT shame....

G Barnett

[Spliffdaddy]

Keep focused on Dubya, liberals.

In the meantine conservatives have made huge gains at the local, state, federal levels - and the Supreme Court.

Whatever it is you liberals have been doing...keep doing it!

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika

No, that's a dictatorship.

A democracy is where EVERYBODY gets to point their finger and criticize IN PUBLIC.

If that didn't happen, nobody would ever know about the options available for voting, let alone the advantages/disadvantages of each of those choices.

Public criticism (and a free press) is the second-most fundamental aspect of democracy (second only to actual voting).



It is sad and pathetic testament to the times that your propaganda machine can lead you to believe otherwise.

Do you believe that just because you have the freedom to do something that it SHOULD be done?

That is silly, yes?

[analogika]

Critical observation of government is something that MUST be done.

I'm not talking about taking undue advantage of freedoms.

I'm talking about criticism of government being a fundamental necessity to the democratic process.


Again: It is sad and pathetic testament to the times that your propaganda machine can lead you to believe otherwise.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Actually, he is right. Speech is not, and cannot be made, a crime in the US. This doesn't mean you can't commit other crimes with speech, of course. For example, the crime in the famous case where someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the crime of reckless endangerment of the people in the theater. If the prosecution can't show reckless endangerment -for example, if there really was a fire in the theater- then the law can't touch the person who said it.

Morally? Maybe, maybe not. Legally, however, it is not.

The crime of sedition does not exist in US law. This isn't for lack of trying; there have been several attempts and a few actual passages of anti-sedition laws, dating all the way back to the second President of the US. However, they have all been struck down as unconstitutional. Which is just as well; freedom of speech must be held as absolute and sacrosanct, or it is meaningless. It's not free speech if you can only say some things.

A Mid-West newspaper viewed those with treasonous ideas as people without brains who shot off their mouths and committed sedition. They apparently approved of sending these people to Russia.

[analogika]

Yes, that is exactly the propaganda I mentioned.

Have fun in your dictatorship - you're making it yourself. Mom would be proud.

[marden]

Here's another interesting one.

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika

Yes, that is exactly the propaganda I mentioned.

Have fun in your dictatorship - you're making it yourself. Mom would be proud.

Aww, leave Mom out of this. You know she liked YOU best.

[Face Ache]

http://www.republicansforhumility.com/

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Morally? Maybe, maybe not. Legally, however, it is not.

Criticizing your government is not morally wrong, not criticizing is. To pretend you agree 100 % is dangerous and unpatriotic, as at the heart of democracy you have public discourse over all political issues.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Criticizing your government is not morally wrong, not criticizing is.

I would agree, but with one caveat: not criticizing your government is only morally wrong if you don't actually agree with the things they're doing. If you agree, then criticizing them would be hypocritical, would it not?

But in any case, although I agree that criticizing isn't morally wrong (as long as it's sincere, anyway), there is some room for debate on that issue. Thus, my "maybe, maybe not". The law, however, is pretty clear on the issue: legally there's nothing wrong with criticism, sincere or otherwise.

To pretend you agree 100 % is dangerous and unpatriotic, as at the heart of democracy you have public discourse over all political issues.

I would say that aside from that, democracy requires dissent in order to survive as such. When everyone agrees, they don't debate. This isn't bad in and of itself, but when it happens too often people get used to not debating, and then when honest dissent eventually rears its head -as it always does, one way or another- it gets crushed because people fear it. This is why truly, absolutely free speech is so important: it ensures that open debate is always possible as long as there is dissent of some kind.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I would agree, but with one caveat: not criticizing your government is only morally wrong if you don't actually agree with the things they're doing. If you agree, then criticizing them would be hypocritical, would it not?

But in any case, although I agree that criticizing isn't morally wrong (as long as it's sincere, anyway), there is some room for debate on that issue. Thus, my "maybe, maybe not". The law, however, is pretty clear on the issue: legally there's nothing wrong with criticism, sincere or otherwise.

I would say that aside from that, democracy requires dissent in order to survive as such. When everyone agrees, they don't debate. This isn't bad in and of itself, but when it happens too often people get used to not debating, and then when honest dissent eventually rears its head -as it always does, one way or another- it gets crushed because people fear it. This is why truly, absolutely free speech is so important: it ensures that open debate is always possible as long as there is dissent of some kind.

Good post. Obviously I mean honest dissent, although it is very difficult to find out what `honest' means in a political environment. Even if the person is honest and sincere, the `other side' will often try to dismiss that criticism as `part of an agenda' (agenda is one of my favorite words anyway, it assumes that the homogenous mass of political consenters conspires against the good guys in a mysterious way ).

History will judge this administration as was every other before it. And the good thing about time is that it has a way of peeling off all those layers of spin and `marketing'. We'll see in ten or twenty years what the legacy of GWB is and how his actions will be remembered.