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: 04-16-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 4:56pm
<>

I didn't say you shouldn't or couldn't say whatever you wish; my comment went to your motive for posting the statement. What did you hope to accomplish?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 5:05pm
I hoped to make him aware that Osama and Al Sadr agrees with him.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 5:22pm
<>

WHY does this agreement matter?


Edited 4/23/2004 5:23 pm ET ET by hayashig

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 04-23-2004 - 6:16pm
Simply incorrect? How? The information was correct? Sorry, but you did not answer the questions I asked. I pay more attention to results and actions than I do words and posturings.

I wonder if Congress winked a bit at the stuff they were asked to swallow in October 2002 so a united front could be presented. But as shaken as we all felt after 9/11, a democracy relies on healthy fact finding, critical thinking and vigorous debating. That didn't happen. Kerry wasn't my first choice to run against Bush, in large part because he didn't speak up so announcing that he saw the same information and voted for war doesn't cut much mustard with me. You mentioned that Dean, who hadn't seen the classified material, was adamantly against the war. So he was uninformed. Is that worse than being misinformed? Maybe he had fewer preconceptions about what was actually happening--and could see more clearly than those who had been hornswoggled.

"Many of the terrorist leaders are now dead or in prison". Says who? The President? When? I wish you were right but see no proof of that. Heard earlier in the news today that most suicide/terror attacks now aren't actually from Al Qaeda but from groups "inspired" by Al Qaeda's actions. That doesn't sound promising for peace at all. We're sitting here waiting for the next attack attempt anyway, by Bush's own admission:

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,247261,00.html



And maybe it's not in spite of the war, but because of it. Apparently, Mr. Bush is just now learning that terrible little law of both physics and politics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Gettingahandle

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 04-24-2004 - 12:52pm

>"I believe we are safer now since many of the terrorist leaders are now dead or in prison."<


The invasion of Iraq has been the best recruiting tool ever for terrorists, IMO.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sat, 04-24-2004 - 9:06pm
I stated (factually) that the people in congress who actually looked at the classified information (including Kerry) voted in *favor* of force in Iraq. These days, the only two honest Democrats left who have seen the classified information are Zell Miller and Joesph Lieberman, who are STILL firmly in support of this mission. The rest followed the man (Howard Dean) who DIDN'T see the classified information because he was getting votes from the leftists. So, you have informed opinion (those who saw the classified information) vs. uninformed opinion (those who DIDN'T see the classified information, his followers, and the partisans who know what it says, but have chosen the path that gets the votes from the left...)

Congress was not asked to swallow anything. They saw the classified information for themselves.

And I am surprised that you didn't know about all the terrorist leaders who have been killed or are now in prison. I guess they don't cover this kind of information wherever you get your news. Oh, well...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 04-24-2004 - 11:42pm
I don't argue that Congress was presented with Bush's case for war. However, it would appear that the case for war was misrepresented, either accidentally or deliberately. Beat around the Bush as much as you want (I'd rather give him a therapeutic dope smack!). No WMD, no cheering Iraqis, no stable society, and many casualties on both sides. The RESULTS speak for themselves about how valid that evidence was.

Congress swallowed that "classified information" without asking the kinds of questions that might have given some of them reason to ask for more validation or proof. I still think it was because they wanted to rally behind the commander-in-chief at a time of national angst. You persist in equating opposition to the war as it went forward with politics. Even IF the reasons were political for asking questions, that doesn't keep the questions from being valid. What do you want, a monoparty system?! That's what operated in Iraq with the Ba'ath party system. And they just followed Saddam Hussein like good little flunkies. Be glad that there are opposing voices--even if you don't agree with them, they're part of the system of checks and balances that are supposed to be hallmarks of our democratic system.

I keep reading about bombs and plots and future threats and can only figure that real live, at-liberty terrorists are behind those activities. Even Bush concedes that it's difficult to defend the United States from attacks (by dead and jailed terrorists?!). It would appear that although some of the terrorist have blown themselves up deliberately, been captured or killed, there are still plenty more to replace those who have been removed. And those who have died or been jailed are all too often seen as martyrs to be emulated.

Gettingahandle

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

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 2:39am
ITA!

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 7:52am
You're wrong. They saw the actual intelligence reports. They were able to decide for themselves by what they read. The Democrats are claiming that Bush mislead them, but they saw it for themselves. Do you believe that he altered the intelligence reports??? Of course he didn't. If he did he would be in jail now.

What I WANT is support for the troops who are ALREADY there! Is that just too much to ask during a presidential election??? I want people ESPECIALLY OUR LEADERS to act responsibly with the lives of the brave men in uniform who are defending our country. The time for political debate about this was BEFORE they went. NOT NOW. It is dangerous to THEM for this to be happening now and I am disgusted by it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Sun, 04-25-2004 - 11:10am
I can supoort the troops but disagree with the president that put them there. And that my dear is a fact.

Pages