Bush Owes No Apology

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Bush Owes No Apology
121
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 6:35pm
NBC "Today" show co-host Lester Holt tried to get top talker Sean Hannity to say Tuesday morning that President Bush should have apologized for making "mistakes" in the war on terror.

But Hannity, who was on hand to promote his book "Deliver Us From Evil," would have none of it.

"Let's talk about critics and the question of whether he owns up to mistakes," Holt began. "Has he made mistakes in the war on terror?"

"Why should he apologize, number one, for the terrorist attack that was brought to this country?" Hannity shot back.

"We've got to face reality here - America is at war and they attacked us," the conservative host reminded, noting that critics of Bush's handling of the war on terror seem to want it both ways.

"We're criticizing the president for not responding to a memo five weeks . But yet we knew that Saddam wasn't abiding by 17 resolutions in 12 years' period of time. And he didn't abide by a cease-fire agreement."

Hannity told "Today" that had Bush allowed Saddam to remain in power and his continued efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction resulted in an attack on the U.S., "would we not have a commission a year and a half later" blaming Bush for ignoring the threat.

Holt complained that Hannity's scenario was "theoretical."

Just like the August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that warned Osama bin Laden wanted to attack America.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/14/115849.shtml

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 10:44am

>"Part of the problem with what happened over the last three years with Bush IMO is that there has been no national debate, no opposition to ANYTHING he has done since 9/11.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 11:03am
agree 100%,

But US has a tendency to think that only when Americans are killed it is terrorism, but when US kills it is military. when others are at war, it is uprising, when they are at war it is defending. What a pot of crock!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 11:15am
How true..

Not only that Iraqi's are deprived of food safety and oil which is produced in their own country. How ironic is that? Previously people were killed only if they went aginst Saddam, now there is not differentiation. People are getting killed .

I am sure they must think about us being the terrorist terrorising their streets.

How can Bush/Haliburton sleep at night????

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 11:18am
Why does that not surprise me? Osama and Al Sadr agree with you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 11:28am
Hear, hear! Yes siree, Bob! I so totally agree!

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 11:48am
Then I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this:

You have informed opinion vs. uninformed. It was the informed who are privy to classified information that "rubber stamped" President Bush's decisions. It was the uninformed (not privy to classified information) Howard Dean who started questioning these actions and got so much traction from uninformed (not privy to classified information) left wingers. When Howard was successful with the left blindly bashing this administration's policies, the other Democrats flip-flopped (except Lieberman) and decided that this was a good way to get votes.

You have to admit this is true.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 11:55am
It's interesting that you continue to equate "attacking the mission" with putting troops in danger. As I pointed out in another post, that damn mission and the way it was set into motion put the troops into harm's way in the first place. The notion that critiquing the why and how of the war that will somehow put the troops into greater danger is really an attempt to stifle objections and cover the stinky mess with a fine glossy shell. Sorry, no go! And it now appears that the classified privy information was, at the best, erroneous, and at the worst, rigged, fabricated, and manipulated.

Where are the WMD? Where are the cheering crowds of Iraqis waiting anxiously to contribute selflessly to their new democracy? Where is our conviction that June 30 will be the dawn of a brave new era? And Bush now says the United States may experience at least an attempt of a terrorist attack, so are we really safer now, or was that a pipe dream?!

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 12:56pm
<>

Must you make such statements--exactly what purpose does this comment serve?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 4:31pm
It is simply incorrect to say that the classified information was "at the best, erroneous, and at the worst, rigged, fabricated, and manipulated". Some people are claiming that the president misrepresented to the public what was *in* the classified information, but the information itself was not as you describe. The people who actually *saw* the classified information voted *with* the president, including Senator Kerry.

I believe we are safer now since many of the terrorist leaders are now dead or in prison. The president never said this was going to be easy, and it may get worse before it gets better, but it will get better. As you know, I much prefer this approach to sitting here waiting for the next attack. At least we are more vigilant now, and have stopped many before they have happened.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 4:36pm
Why shouldn't I say it? It's the truth. Al Sadr has even been quoting Ted Kennedy lately.

Pages