Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a ... piece of paper.

Bot · #31

Nope. The troops are doing exactly what they were trained to do: fight a war. That is the sole purpose of an army.

#32

Southern Belle;

Funny, I read all transcripts of all of the President's Addresses, and personnel mesages, an saw no such mention.

His last public address about the war was http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 218-2.html, and mentioned no such thing. It was a really good speech, actually, and point on with a historic understanding of the conflicts of the Middle East that predate his father's influence.

What you may mean is his Dec 7th address, where he comemorated the attack on Pearl Harbour ion 1941, which is the "Greatest War Ever," a name given to World War II by Winston Churchill after America retailated, and the war began to span the Pacific and the Atlantic, as well as most of popuated Europe and Africa.

He also used the oppotunity to convey the gravity of the Iraq situation, which was also related the event that lead to air planes being used as weapons; but even more than that, a casual glance at history will reveal there are some very CLOSE analogies between the radical islamist terrorists manipulation of the faith of Muslims, and the Japanese twisting of the honor of bushido to create kamikazee pilots. ~ as well as their motives.

vertical,
raum

#33

that's probably what i heard...i wasn't paying close attention, so...My bad! :oops:

Anyway, this war was supposed to be about "weapons of mass destruction," which were never found, and once we found them, we were supposed to get rid of saddam and get out, right? i don't believe that we should have left iraq in ruins, but i do believe that dubya shouldn't have basically lied about WMD to get us over there in the first place! i really think that dubya was just trying to get back at saddam for beatin up his daddy in the Gulf War!

#34

Ummm ..... I hate to point this out.... but Saddam didn't "beat up on his daddy" in the gulf war. We achieved our objective in the gulf war, which was stated as "the liberation of Kuwait". George Sr. found himself in a no-win situation politically; continue after Saddam after having achieved his stated objective would have been criticized by many. Leaving Iraq after liberating Kuwait, but with Saddam in control has been criticized by many. Hind site is 20/20, but at the time, he chose to go with what he thought would result in less blood shed. Who knew then that such a well intentioned decision would ultimately result in the loss of much, much more.

#35

true, and it amuses me how many people heard "Saddam, after being forced out of Kuwait, mobilized an assassination attempt to kill the President of the United States of America, while George Bush Sr. was serving in the oval office." and repeat it as "dubbya is just mad cause Saddam beat up his daddy."