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: 04-16-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 10:39am
-- If we thought he was so damn dangerous and irresponsible and such a threat to our security then why did we give him millions of dollars in aid and weapons for fighting the Iranians?

At the time, we had helped out Iraq as the US may have felt that Iran was a greater threat to the region. I am not saying that it was the correct thing to do, but it was something that the current administration decided was correct. You cannot compare then to now.

--We have failed...if all we wanted was Saddam then take him. We are an advanced country...I know that if our county really wanted to they could have taken just him.

Oh really? If it is as simple as you seem to think, then why were we not able to take out Fidel Castro when we did. Why didnt we just go in and take Hussein when he invaded Kuwait if it were that simple? I think you have been watching too many Delta Force movies, as they are not omnipotent and the option of just taking Hussein without any military struggle is aboslute nonsense.

-- The problem with that though is that wouldn't have lined the pockets of Bush and his cronies as much as this war has. I have one word for you "Halliburton".

I dont have a problem with Haliburton receiving the lions share of the contracts for the oil fields in Iraq, as they are the largest company in the world doing this type of work. They are larger than all of their competitors combined, so they have more resources available, which is a good thing.

I do have a problem with the fact that they overcharged for some of the work, which is extremely wrong, and corrupt (but has nothing to do with the current administration). They have since admitted to the wrongdoing and have been fined $150,000,000 (I think that was the amount), which is good to see.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 11:34am
ROLF!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 12:08pm
My attempt at comedy, reading this as a choice of "roll on the laughing floor" or rolf being the sound made when someone regurgitates....seems to have bombed. I guess I'll keep my day job...


Edited 4/22/2004 8:32 pm ET ET by iminnie833
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 2:55pm
It may not be quite the same thing, but I get the gist of what you are saying, and I do agree somewhat with that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 2:55pm
Why is that the same as the pot calling the kettle black?

Am I missing something here?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 3:04pm
-- We were attacked by a group formed and run by Osama Bin Laden, a man who, despite the fact that we can find Saddam Hussein in a hole somewhere, continues to elude the United States of America

Yes we were attacked by al Qaeda and the CIA apparently warned of these sort of attacks back in 1995, but nothing was done about it.

Next, with regards to Hussein, we were pointed to exactly where he was hiding. I am sure that if we had this same intelligence on bin Laden, we would either capture or kill him just as easliy, so what is your point?

-- We decide to attack someone that we know we can beat and go against practically the entire UN to do it

All but three members of the UN security council were going to support the US/UK resolution for military action, and it is now appearing that the oil for food scandal is showing that the countries that would not support the resolution had other motives.

-- I believe that any desperate connection that Bush made with Hussein and 9/11 was only based on support that they believe he may or may not have given Al-Quaeda to finance 9/11

Reading back on many of Bush's speeches, I cannot find where Bush made a direct tie in between Hussein and 9/11. If someone has other information, please post the link so I can further my knowledge of the subject.

-- I think that 9/11 was brought on by the United States, financed by the United States, and an event that after hearing the testimony brought before the commission that the United States could have and should have stopped.

Well you are one for three on the above. 1) How did the US bring 9/11 on itself. 2) How did we finance 9/11? 3) Yes, it appears as though there was enough to go on to perhaps do something pre-emptive to help thwart the attacks on 9/11.

-- The families of the 703 soldiers that have died (not including the ones that have committed suicide when they returned) are now owed an apology for the waste of life this "war on terror" has claimed. I think that the only logical apology could come from our dear old "Dubya".

After the investigation of the Oil for food scandal, it may come out that France and Russia are the ones that will owe the apology, as if they had been willing to vote for the US/UK resolution, Germany would have followed suit, and there probably would not have been a war. The reasoning behind Hussein not backing down to the US was that France and Russia were telling him that they would not support any US/UK resolution for military action, and Hussein thought that the US and UK would never go it in the way they did.

-- Not that he could apologize with any real feeling, he made sure to never get his hands dirty with war (Vietnam??) and he is making way too much money off of this war to really feel bad about it.

How much money is George Bush making as a result of this war? According to his tax returns, he has made about the same amount of money each year since taking office, so that knocks your theory out of the loop.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 4:08pm

>"Am I missing something here?"<


You must be if you hadn't noticed that the

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 04-21-2004 - 4:17pm
So sorry, Oh Perfect One. I will be more careful next time.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 04-22-2004 - 12:25am


Perhaps you only see what certain elements of the media want you to see. A recent abc news poll shows that 56% of Iraqis say that their lives are better today-TODAY_despite all of the unrest that is going on in the country, and over 3/4 believe that their lives will be improving over the next 12 months.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 04-22-2004 - 12:35am


Obviously this woman is quite upset that her husband is going to be deployed longer than expected. I'm sure she must be very disappointed, and I feel bad for her, I truly do. What that has to do with what America is doing in Iraq, I really don't know. We have a military, it is expected to be at the ready when needed, no one wants to send them into war but if it wasn't necessary why would we have a military in the first place? Military action doesn't always go exactly as expected, as a matter of fact I would say it usually doesn't. Our military unfortunately must be prepared for the possibility that we might actually (gasp) need their services, and maybe sometimes beyond what we originally believed. It would be nice if we could perfectly predict the duration and endpoint of every mission, but that's not always possible. And contrary to what this woman's letter states, the majority of miitary families do support the action in Iraq and Prsident Bush.

Pages