dubya wants disssenters to STFU and "responsible" debate

[boutons_]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
January 10, 2006

Bush Issues Stark Warning to Democrats on Iraq Debate

By DAVID E. SANGER (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=DAVID%20E.%20SANGER&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=DAVID%20E.%20SANGER&inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - President Bush issued an unusually stark warning to Democrats today about how to conduct the debate on Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) as midterm elections approach, declaring that Americans know the difference "between honest critics" and those "who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people."

( Americans also know lying and imcompetence, esp since dubya has admiited lying about reasons for the Repug war )

In a speech here to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Bush appeared to be issuing a pre-emptive warning to critics at a time when Democrats are divided between those who say the United States should begin a troop withdrawal now and those who have criticized Mr. Bush but say the United States should stay in Iraq as long as necessary.

In some of his most combative language yet directed as his critics, Mr. Bush said Americans should insist on a debate "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."

( but dubya/dickhead have already discredited USA in the eyes of the world and of the majority of US citizens. Trying reading following the news, bubble boy, your administration and legacy is in the toilet. )

Mr. Bush was speaking in the same room in a Washington hotel where last month he described the effort to reconstruct Iraq before a skeptical audience: the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members greeted him with only tepid applause. But today 425 members of the V.F.W., which has passed a resolution supporting the Iraq action, interrupted the president repeatedly as he predicted that progress would be made in both fighting the insurgency and stabilizing the newly elected government.

Mr. Bush acknowledged major human rights abuses by the Iraqi police, who he said have been "accused of committing abuses against Iraqi civilians."

"That's unacceptable," he said, adding that the United States was adjusting how it trains Iraqi police officers, including the establishment of a new "Police Ethics and Leadership Institute" in Baghdad that will establish a curriculum for the nine Iraqi police academies. He made no references to disclosures over the past year of American abuses of detainees, in Iraq and elsewhere.

( of couse not. US perps cause death of detainees, nobody's punished.)

The president acknowledged slow progress in restoring basic services in Iraq, but argued that those problems paled in comparison to the progress he said Iraq was making.

"The vast majority of Iraqis prefer freedom with intermittent power to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror," he said, an amplification of the theme he hit repeatedly in December in an effort to rebuild support for the war at home.

( all Iraqis want electricity 24 hours/day, decent water, working sewage, jobs )

President Bush also pressed countries that have promised aid to Iraq to make good on their pledges. He praised Slovakia and Malta for forgiving all of Iraq's previous debts to those countries - though their concessions amounted to a couple of hundred million dollars. Among large countries, only the United States has forgiven all past Iraqi debt.

But it was Mr. Bush's warning to Democrats that ventured into new territory.

"There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas," he said without specifically naming his critics.

( they're risking and wasting their lives because dubya started this bullshit war. If every war disssenter STFU, the insurgency would continue uabated )

In discussing Iraqi politics, the president directly addressed Sunni Arabs, the minority in the new government, saying that "compromise and consensus and power-sharing are the only path to national unity and lasting democracy."

Mr. Bush added that "a country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward and risks sliding back into tyranny."




Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

=================================

dubya isn't man enough to counter the criticism of the war,
to face up to the dissenters,
so he wants the dissenters to quit playing hardball,
to quit calling dubya/dickhead out for lying their way into the war.

[Spurminator]

Responsible Debate <> STFU

[Trainwreck2100]

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/8325/stfu3ys0hc.gif

[Oh, Gee!!]

Gestapo tactics

[Vashner]

Don't have have a broken fingernail to polish or new barbie outfits that are not currently in your vast collection?

[SouthernFried]

I think Bush makes sense. And I don't think anyone could have proven his point better...then this thread starter.

[xrayzebra]

Gestapo tactics

Why? Isn't that what the dimm-o-craps do all the time. PC and
diversity rules the day in their world. I really do think they should
shut up until such time that they have a coherent thought. Gee that
may be a long time.

[Ocotillo]

Why? Isn't that what the dimm-o-craps do all the time. PC and
diversity rules the day in their world. I really do think they should
shut up until such time that they have a coherent thought. Gee that
may be a long time.

Thank you for keeping your comments in a responsible tone. :lol

[JohnnyMarzetti]

What a pathetic excuse for a president Dumbya is!! :cuss

Responsible debate my ass! What he wants is everyone to kiss his ass. Maybe if he'd a listened to "honest debate" about this clusterfuck he's gotten us into he wouldn't have to worry about the critics of his war of mass deception.

Oh how I wish it was 2008 so we get rid of his numbnuts!!

[Nbadan]

There does have to be a legitimate, honest debate about the Iraq war, and American influence in the M.E. and Central Asia, just don't expect it to happen under this President.

[Yonivore]

I read the article twice and didn't see a "warning," stark or otherwise.

Usually a warning is comprised of the characterization of a certain behavior and the consequences you intend to bring about for that behavior.

Exactly what did the President say he was going to do if the dissenters didn't STFU?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I read the article twice and didn't see a "warning," stark or otherwise.

Usually a warning is comprised of the characterization of a certain behavior and the consequences you intend to bring about for that behavior.

Exactly what did the President say he was going to do if the dissenters didn't STFU?


I fail to see what makes you a Libertarian.

[boutons_]

He didn't explicitly say "if you don't STFU, I will do XXX"

He's implicitly threatening that hardcore disssent, including calling dubay/dickhead/rummy liars and incompetents, and having a "hidden agenda" for starting war (oil $$$, Alaska drilling, expansion of exec powers, win 2004 "war time" election) will be paid back by the voters and/or by encouragement of insurgents, both of which are bullshit.

We all know the Bush Family/Atwater/Rove/Repug "whatever it takes" slime machine is always primed and ready to spew.

[Yonivore]

He didn't explicitly say "if you don't STFU, I will do XXX"

He's implicitly threatening that hardcore disssent, including calling dubay/dickhead/rummy liars and incompetents, and having a "hidden agenda" for starting war (oil $$$, Alaska drilling, expansion of exec powers, win 2004 "war time" election) will be paid back by the voters and/or by encouragement of insurgents, both of which are bullshit.

We all know the Bush Family/Atwater/Rove/Repug "whatever it takes" slime machine is always primed and ready to spew.
He's just calling it as he sees it. I agree with him...there are a certain sect of dissenters that are harming the effort, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and demoralizing our troops.

That's not a warning, that's a characterization of the effects of their dissent. You can disagree with the characterization but that doesn't make it a warning.

He believes the voters will punish those who are being irresponsible with their words. I agree.

[xrayzebra]

He didn't explicitly say "if you don't STFU, I will do XXX"

He's implicitly threatening that hardcore disssent, including calling dubay/dickhead/rummy liars and incompetents, and having a "hidden agenda" for starting war (oil $$$, Alaska drilling, expansion of exec powers, win 2004 "war time" election) will be paid back by the voters and/or by encouragement of insurgents, both of which are bullshit.

We all know the Bush Family/Atwater/Rove/Repug "whatever it takes" slime machine is always primed and ready to spew.

Well actually, I wished he hadn't give them some good solid advise if they
want to get elected/re-elected. I wished he had just let them do as you
do, you know make a fool out of yourself. :lol

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I want to believe Little George's original intentions with the whole Iraq mess were noble. I really do.

[gtownspur]

There does have to be a legitimate, honest debate about the Iraq war, and American influence in the M.E. and Central Asia, just don't expect it to happen under this President.


I'm sorry NBaDan, but how and why is there no honest debate about the Iraq War. Why?

Why should bush want to debate with senate democrats who really don't care about the outcome of the war.

THe difference between my side and your side is this....


WE WANTED TO SUCCEED IN THE IRAQ WAR FROM DAY ONE.


YOU WANTED US TO FAIL FROM DAY ONE.


Prime Example:
You do not have an honest debate about how much the Yankees deserve the PEnnant with a Boston Red SOx fan. You just won't get it.


THe same with this honest debate about the war. There is no debate on how we can pull together to complete the task.


All the left want is..

To have a timetable pullout which conservatives see as a victory for the insurgency, and the left deep down know it.

To concede defeat.

And to impeach Bush,

and you are here acting contrite of how you actually want Bush and conservatives to have an honest debate...

[boutons_]

"believe Little George's original intentions"

Naive and trusting as most Americans are about politics and institutions, most Americans wanted to belive dubya/dickhead weren't liars and incompetents. That as bad as the pre-war bullshit smelled, they didn't wanted to believe the Repugs were going to bugger America. They gave these assholes the benefit of the doubt. The Repugs knew full well they could exploit the 9/11 trauma and national solidarity to their own greedy, power-hungry Repug ends, and they did, ruthlessly.

The tide has turned, most Americans don't trust/believe these repugnant motherfuckers anymore. dubya/dickhead's 2 terms will go down as the some of the most disastrous, incompetent, venal, kleptocratic in American history.

[Nbadan]

'm sorry NBaDan, but how and why is there no honest debate about the Iraq War. Why?

It all goes back to the energy plan the WH drafted with the help of Enron and other private energy companies that mapped out the future of American intentions in Iraq and the greater M.E.. If the WH is not willing to make that plan public, then there is no sense wasting the time, money and effort to have an open, informed debate.

[Nbadan]

Why should bush want to debate with senate democrats who really don't care about the outcome of the war.
THe difference between my side and your side is this....
WE WANTED TO SUCCEED IN THE IRAQ WAR FROM DAY ONE.
YOU WANTED US TO FAIL FROM DAY ONE.

:rolleyes

That why Democrats voted almost unanimously along with Republicans to give Dubya the authorization to take pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, right? Why didn't Democrats more diligently question the legitimacy of intelligence coming from Cheney's Iraq Survey Group and Iraqi dissident groups which had a lot to gain by seeing Hussein gone?

[xrayzebra]

:rolleyes

That why Democrats voted almost unanimously along with Republicans to give Dubya the authorization to take pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, right? Why didn't Democrats more diligently question the legitimacy of intelligence coming from Cheney's Iraq Survey Group and Iraqi dissident groups which had a lot to gain by seeing Hussein gone?

That's because they would have been hung from the nearest tree if they
didn't, you know it, I know it. Don't make them look like something they
aren't. They are going to suffer the consequence of their recent actions
in the coming elections. They have shown who side they are one, and
it sure isn't the American side. Who protects all the terrorist "rights"?
Who says every, I mean every, person nominated is racist, homophobic,
dumb and not fit to hold a dog catcher's job? People are not stupid as
you would like to make them out. Look who supports Bush on his
"wire tap". It isn't the dimm-o-craps.

[gtownspur]

:rolleyes

That why Democrats voted almost unanimously along with Republicans to give Dubya the authorization to take pre-emptive action against Saddam Hussein, right? Why didn't Democrats more diligently question the legitimacy of intelligence coming from Cheney's Iraq Survey Group and Iraqi dissident groups which had a lot to gain by seeing Hussein gone?


This has been discussed a thousand times. The oppurtunist democrats voted for the resolution out of fear of dissenting, then quickly after the vote they all started to doubt the vote, and cast doubt on american victory.

Cmon dan, don't be dishonest!

[implacable44]

What a pathetic excuse for a president Dumbya is!! :cuss

Responsible debate my ass! What he wants is everyone to kiss his ass. Maybe if he'd a listened to "honest debate" about this clusterfuck he's gotten us into he wouldn't have to worry about the critics of his war of mass deception.

Oh how I wish it was 2008 so we get rid of his numbnuts!!


maybe if he would have fired that CLINTON appointed head of the CIA he would have had better, more reliable information to make a decision.

the cluster? - you mean all that intelligence - the same intelligence that every one on the planet earth had ? big conspiracy theory you have there. France, Russia -- everyone was in on it right ?

[Nbadan]

maybe if he would have fired that CLINTON appointed head of the CIA he would have had better, more reliable information to make a decision.

the cluster? - you mean all that intelligence - the same intelligence that every one on the planet earth had ? big conspiracy theory you have there. France, Russia -- everyone was in on it right ?

:rolleyes

Yeah, and Cheney and his Iraq Survey group of Neocon and Iraqi dissidents, like turn-coat Ahmad Chilabi, made sure that all the intelligence coming from the CIA on Iraq and Saddam Hussein was objective and impartial, right? Everyone had the same flawed intelligence coming from the State Department and the Office of the VP.

And France and Russia, the U.N., and NATO were all eager participants of the 'coalition of the willing'.


NOT!

[implacable44]

why would france and russia or even the UN for that matter have been willing participants when they stood to lose MILLIONS FROM THAT CASH COW SADDAM and they were exposed for the corrupt cowards they all are. Tell the whole story anus not just what suits your liberal agenda.-- you already know why they didnt participate - don't just leave out facts Dan Rather.

[smeagol]

why would france and russia or even the UN for that matter have been willing participants when they stood to lose MILLIONS FROM THAT CASH COW SADDAM and they were exposed for the corrupt cowards they all are. Tell the whole story anus not just what suits your liberal agenda.-- you already know why they didnt participate - don't just leave out facts Dan Rather.
Funny how right wing dudes are quick to accuse France, Germany, Russia, etc of having economic interests in Iraq but when people hint the US-led invasion was driven, among other things, by oil revenues (something I do not agree with), those same guys dismiss you as anti-american.

[Dos]

Funny how right wing dudes are quick to accuse France, Germany, Russia, etc of having economic interests in Iraq but when people hint the US-led invasion was driven, among other things, by oil revenues (something I do not agree with), those same guys dismiss you as anti-american.

yes protecting america's energy supplies.. shouldn't matter in times of war.. after all who needs oil.. but a economy drunk on oil..!!

[smeagol]

yes protecting america's energy supplies.. shouldn't matter in times of war.. after all who needs oil.. but a economy drunk on oil..!!
Huh?

So you agree with the statement that America went to war in Iraq because of the oil?

[Nbadan]

why would france and russia or even the UN for that matter have been willing participants when they stood to lose MILLIONS FROM THAT CASH COW SADDAM and they were exposed for the corrupt cowards they all are. Tell the whole story anus not just what suits your liberal agenda.-- you already know why they didnt participate - don't just leave out facts Dan Rather.

Then we should be at war with the State of Texas, because rich Texas oil barons were some of the biggest profiteers of Saddam food-for-oil coupons. When you examine the facts your attacks on countries and organizations that did not fall for administration's Iraq WMD scam fall flat.

[Mr. T]

I don't think all the dissenters should shut the fuck up. Just Ohgee.

[implacable44]

accuse? isn't it a known fact saddam was paying those clowns ?

What are you talking about ? Oil ? see how those gas prices dropped ! - amazing - no doubt we are dependent on oil - I doubt that oil was one of the major concerns or aims of the war though. What otehr revenues are you referring to ? ?Haliburton ? - you m ean that same company that has attempted to sell the same contracts they own but that nobody wants to buy because they aren't making any money ??

[ChumpDumper]

Haliburton ? - you m ean that same company that has attempted to sell the same contracts they own but that nobody wants to buy because they aren't making any money ??Hey, maybe those contracts should've been bid upon, eh?

[implacable44]

eh ?

well they have proven to be so profitable for haliburton man - obvious conspiracy there.

[ChumpDumper]

eh ?

well they have proven to be so profitable for haliburton man - obvious conspiracy there.Wake me when they file chapter seven.

[implacable44]

Wake me when they file chapter seven.


You mean Chapter 11 don't you ? Typically businesses will file an 11 - you will see the ocassional 7 but it is rare. I mean even Enron filed an 11.

[ChumpDumper]

No I meant 7. If these contracts are that bad it'll be 7.

[gtownspur]

Funny how right wing dudes are quick to accuse France, Germany, Russia, etc of having economic interests in Iraq but when people hint the US-led invasion was driven, among other things, by oil revenues (something I do not agree with), those same guys dismiss you as anti-american.


Accusations against the US govt's sole reason to invade iraq are just that,...accusations.

France, P-russia, etc, are not, they have been proven to be collaboraters in the Oil for Food investigation,...


NEXT!

[gtownspur]

Wake me when they file chapter seven.


Haliburton didnt put all its eggs in Iraq, so they wouldnt have to file bankruptcy if they failed so.

But nothing short of Haliburton tanking would convince you of the conservative viewpoint on the iraq profiteering.

Nevertheless, remain being a pessimistic psuedo non partisan bs of a closet democrat who doesn't care to see the country have a good succesful war.