CNN's Sanchez: Anbar is a "success, enough to have the president fly in there last week"
SUMMARY: CNN correspondent Rick Sanchez stated that President Bush identified
Iraq's Anbar Province "as a place infested with Al
Qaeda," causing him to "sen[d] in more troops." Sanchez added: "The result:
success, enough to have the president fly in there last week." In fact, Bush
never left the heavily fortified base during his secret visit there to see the
changes he touted firsthand.
During CNN's coverage leading up to President Bush's September 13 address to the nation, correspondent Rick Sanchez said that Bush has previously "identified Anbar [Province] as a place infested with Al Qaeda," causing him to "sen[d] in more troops." Sanchez added: "The result: success, enough to have the president fly in there last week." Sanchez did not note, as The Washington Post reported in a September 4 article, that "[a]lthough Bush touted the substantial political and security progress made in Anbar, he did not leave the safety of the base Monday to see those changes firsthand."
The trip to the base in Anbar was Bush's third secret trip to Iraq, having gone on November 27, 2003, and on June 13, 2006.
As Media Matters for America has noted, in a September 4 washingtonpost.com column, Dan Froomkin described the base as an "enormous, heavily fortified American outpost for 10,000 troops that while technically in Anbar Province in fact has a 13-mile perimeter keeping Iraq -- and Iraqis -- at bay." Froomkin also reported that Marines and soldiers refer to the base "as 'Camp Cupcake,' for its relatively luxurious facilities."
From the 8 p.m. ET hour of the September 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): And as you listen to the president, what, in about 48 minutes or so, there are some things you should keep in mind -- specifically, his own words. CNN's Rick Sanchez has been watching all of this for us. Rick is joining us from New York. All right, explain what's going on, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Well, here's what we did, Wolf. We went back and looked at some of the president's old speeches. Let's do this for you. Let's compare what the president said eight months ago when he announced the so-called surge with actual results on the ground.
We've got some graphics I want to show you. Let's go over -- Jeff, let's go over to the big wall. All right, let's start in Anbar Province, good place to start. The president identified Anbar as a place infested with Al Qaeda. So, he sent in more troops. The result: success, enough to have the president fly in there last week. And General Petraeus says that Al Qaeda's presence there is way down.
Little Ricky...
Dumber than a bag of hammers.
My apologies to bags.
And hammers.
Next week, Duhhbya's flying to the sun, but he'll have to wait 'til it's dark.
Apparently, Falujah - the area touted to be closer to success than any of the rest of Iraq - has become as safe as Iraq was when Bush flew in with his plastic turkey a few years back.
Yep. Smells like progress.
"The result: success, enough to have the president fly in there last week."
In an inconspicuous military chopper.
That's our bubble boy!
Isn't it time for a war time President to be honest with the American people about the war we are fighting? Of all of Bush's bungling for the last 4 1/2 years, the fact that he still cannot level with us is the most disturbing aspect of his Presidency, not to mention his character.
Frankly, 01/20/09 cannot come soon enough for me.
who you voting for?
At this point, nobody impresses me enough to get my vote.
Ok, who depresses you least ;)?
Actually I like Mike Huckabee, but he is a longshot at best.....Ron Paul is interesting, but another longshot.
For the Dems, I wouldn't rule out Hillary because I think she is tough and would govern more from the middle, but whether I would really pull that lever with her name under it is also a big longshot.
Please, no more religious nuts in the White House - look where that has got us today!
Tommy, It's none of my business and if you don't respond I certainly won't be offended. Do you live in a conservative district that usually elects Republican legislatures? How important is a presidential candidate’s position on Iraq to you?
Lynn, No problem, I live in LA - hardly a conservative bastion. My House rep and both Senators are Democrats.
Tommy,
I hope you don't mind my asking this, but as a conservative how could you possibly consider voting for a liberal Democrat like Hillary? As a conservative wouldn't you want to vote for a conservative candidate like Thompon, Romney, or one of the other Republican candidates?
RH,
I thought you were done with Romney?
If he ended up winning the primary and was running against Hillary or any other Democratic candidate I would still vote for him. I just said that I'm now undecided about who I want to win the Republican primary.
Hillary is not a liberal outside your fevered imagination or using your anthing to the left of Ghengis Khan is a liberal standard.
http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#NY
Hillary has a 9% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and she's not a liberal? Are you kidding me?
And she had a 95% rating from the liberal group the ADA in 2006. It didn't say what her lifetime rating is, but I'm sure that it's similar.
http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm
I dont care what the conservatives say about her what I know is the liberals I hang with and not ONE of them is excited about Hillary. She is a little left of moderate. Kucinich is a liberal. Fiengold. Hillary is NOT a liberal. According to the liberal rankings she was 32nd out of 51 Democratic Senators on her voting record her score was 70 out of 100 Durbins was 95. She is fairly moderate.
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm
Those ratings are certainly an exception. Most other ratings show that she's solidly liberal. This site shows that she has mostly liberal positions with two moderate positions mixed in:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm
100% Rating from Naral
60% Rating from the ACLU-One of her 2 moderate positions.
35% from US COS-Her other moderate position.
82% rating rom the NEA
89% rating from the LCV
0% rating from the Christian coalition
17% rating from Cato-Fair Trade voting record
100% rating from the APHA
100% by SANE
85% by the AFL-CIO
100% from the ARA
21% by NTU-Big spender on tax votes
Rates as a hard core liberal overall.
These numbers are slightly misleading because most issues that liberals support are mainstream issues. And Solon never claimed Hillary was a conservative.
I know. Solon said that Hillary had a moderate voting record, and as I pointed out with that link she has a liberal voting record. And Americans as a whole are pretty centrist. We've had 2 Democratic Presidents over the last 30 years and 3 Republican Presidents. Congress has gone back and forth. Americans are pretty divided politically.
"as I pointed out with that link she has a liberal voting record."
As I pointed out, most liberal issues are mainstream issues so this is somewhat misleading.
So support of higher taxes, partial birth abortion, and more gun control laws are popular positions?
"So support of higher taxes"
Yes. The Democrats are trusted more with taxes (especially if you say you're going to tax the rich) and the economy in general.
"partial birth abortion"
What's the polling on late term abortion?
"more gun control laws"
Yes, but Democrats would lose with one issue voters. This is why Gore loss Tennessee."more gun control laws"
Yes, but Democrats would lose with one issue voters. This is why Gore loss Tennessee.
"The Democrats are trusted with more taxes"
Ahhh, by whom? Can I see a poll that says anyone would gladly have their taxes increased if they knew the Democrats were the stewards of that cash instead of the Republicans?
Let's just say that I trust neither with anymore than they already have now, in fact, they have way too much, we want it back!
I don't like using this polling organization but this is the first one that popped up on google.
Well, trusting them more with our taxes is not the same as trusting them more with "higher" taxes, which is the context of Rino's question and your response.
I still say I trust neither with the reckless way they spend our money, and they should be cut off until they demonstrate otherwise.
The Democrats are talking about taxing the rich. I don't know if there was ever a poll where a question about taxing the rich was asked.
Loonz,
Google "class warfare", it might come up then?
(teasing, it's Friday)
:)
If they were honest anyone talking about class warfare would be talking about REPUBLICANS. Attacking labor, increasing the income gap, lowering taxes mostly on the rich while gutting domestic programs, fighting the minimum wage hikes that IS class warfare. You dishonest people want to call pointing out that is what is happening as class warfare. We are IN a class war and the middle class and poor are getting out butts kicked.
This country was founded on "Class warfare"
Unfortunately, about 30% of us have been suckered into believing that noticing crazy concentrations of wealth is Un-American.
Rhinos dishonest frame doesnt get to define the discussion.
I also found this Media Matters item but it's from 2006.
About 75% of the American people are against partial birth abortion. And the American people have mixed views regarding taxes, but it's only because the tax cuts didn't come with spending cuts. Most people are concerned with the deficit.
And you did NOTHING to refute what I said or the RANKING of Hillary. Loonz is right those are mostly mainstream issues. How did the OTHER Senators rank in what you posted. Bottom line Hillary is in the middle of the bottom of the pack of Democrats. She is NOT a liberal. I am a liberal. Kucinich, Durbin, those are liberals. Hillary is moderate she always has been. This is just the story the rightwing loves to push and YOU love to push any rightwing talking point. As I said I dont know any liberals who just love Hillary. Look at her stance on the war, look at her stance on free trade. Hey by YOUR standards anyone not a Clinton hating, neandrathal is a liberal. I know a liberal when I see one. Hillary doesnt make the cut.
Democrats absolutely love Hillary. She has about a 80% favorability rating among Democrats, and she is killing everybody in the polls. You're too extreme to even be a Democrat, so you have very little credibility on this issue. You think that anybody to the right of Fidel Castro is a conservative.
She has the machine behind her and because they are willing to support her is NO evidence they LOVE her. That is your delusions talking again. No I dont think anyone to the riht of Castro blah blah. But you have SHOWN that you think anyone to the left of Attilla the Hun is a liberal and Hillar is NOT a liberal. Her voting record puts her 32nd out of 51 Dems. Rent a clue. I KNOW a liberal when I see one and Hillar is NOT a liberal. Never has been. Never will be no matter how often you repeat the talking point.
"Her voting record puts her 32nd out of 51 Dems"
If that's actually true it simply shows how far left the Democratic Party really is. The only moderate Democrat in the Senate is Ben Nelson from Nebraska.
Again the only thing shown is that YOU and your weird frame are so far to the left to YOU Jesse Helms was a moderate. While this is somewhat subjective YOUR frame is pure delusion nothing more.
I'm just wondering- do any " liberals" spend much time gathering " ratings" about the candidates?
Or do they just use their own eyes and ears?
Rino,
I did say it would be a longshot for Clinton.....but I cannot support Romney for he flip flops so much and his core principles appear flimsy and nearly nonexistant for me. No, I will not vote for him if he is the nominee.
As for Thompson, I really don't know that much about him but he doesn't impress me yet either....just a gut feeling at this point.
As for Hillary, I certainly understand she is liberal and I don't even agree with many of her positions - but as I've said, her marriage issues are irrelevant to me, if she is a bit**, that is also irrelevant, but she is tough and smart and calculating and driven - qualities I like in a candidate. Also, I really think she would govern far more in the middle, that is a perception, granted, but also a gut feeling.
I know, I can't imagine supporting her, I just have not completely ruled her out like I certainly have with Edwards - and I just think Obama is not experienced enough for me, my opinion.
"I did say it would be a longshot for Clinton.....but I cannot support Romney for he flip flops so much and his core principles appear flimsy and nearly nonexistant for me. No, I will not vote for him if he is the nominee"
What about the fact that Hillary flip flopped on the war? Do you really think that she flip flops less than Romney?
You have a point, but the problem for me about Hillary and the war is how she is trying to rewrite history and backtrack from her vote for authorization - she should just own it and be done with it. So I don't see it as much of a flip flop position, as I do a lack of accountability for her vote to placate her base - which is hardly admirable, I know - but it is politics.
But you make sense, her Republican opponent, if it were Romney, would probably have me voting for neither......it's just too early for me.
I see. In my opinion Hillary and many other Democrats voted to go to war in 2003 because it was the popular thing to do and now oppose the war because it has become incredibly unpopular. My guess is that if the majority of the American people still supported the war along with a big portion of her base, Hillary would still support the war as well. It's all politics with her, in my opinion.
Thats possible. Its certainly a valid criticism of Hillary. She does seem to be one of the more calculating of politicians. Its certainly more valid than the inane claim she is some kind of ultra liberal
I've not seen a single poster here that is a big Clinton supporter from either side. It's all Edwards, Kucinich, Obama etc...Yet she is dominating the polls. What's up with that?
Bruce, I think it's because this website is dominated by very liberal contributors, who would opt for the candidates you mention.
Tommy it isn't that for me. I am sick of the Washington status quo. I'm sick of having policy and laws determined by large coorporations that buy influence in DC. I don't think that's a right or left issue. This DC influence market has a direct economic impact on our day to day lives. Sorry I don't beleive even you think that government should be sold like a commodity by the people that are supposed to be voting for the best interest of we the people.
So which candidate do you believe wants to change the way that things are done in Washington?
Obama and Ron Paul.
I think Ron Paul is a nice guy but I disagree with him on 98% of the issues. Neither will probably be the primary candidates of their respective party. I know Paul won't be the Republican's because of his satnce on Iraq and I doubt that Obama will win the Dem primary.
Lynn,
For me, it isn't even about so much changing the Washington status quo as much as it is about a candidate who is principled and will level with us, say what the real deal is, what he or she wants to do regardless of polls, lead with honesty and integrity, and let us decide from there.
Their specific ideology is almost becoming secondary to me anymore - look at Bush, the biggest spender in history and now selling a war with half truths, if I can't trust them to be honest, their stance on issues for me is irrelevant.
...I doubt that Obama will win the Dem primary.
I get that feeling, too, Lynn. Mostly because of the gaffes he made in the past few months that will be used against him if he's up against Thompson (who I see as the GOP nominee). I'm rooting for Edwards, but sadly, I think Hillary is going to get the nod. Once again I'll be forced to vote for a president that I really don't care for but have to because they're slightly better than a Republican on domestic issues. And lord knows we need a Democratic president since the Supreme Court is tilting way to the Right.
And I know that folks like Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich says there will be a Clinton/Obama ticket, but I just don't see that happening because the attacks the two have made against each other seems personal. I just can't see Clinton picking Obama as her VP when he called her Bush-lite. I see a Clinton/Biden ticket, which is sad, because those are the two I have the most issues with policy-wise. I'm not really fond of their voting record.
"And lord knows we need a Democratic president since the Supreme Court is tilting way to the Right"
We don't have a conservative court. That's a myth. We have a centrist court. We have four conservatives, four liberals, and a centrist. But I agree with you that the Supreme Court is very important. That's the main reason why I would never vote for a Democrat for President.
Hmm, I don't think I said we have a "conservative court," Rino, I did say it's tilting way to the Right, but I never said it's conservative. However, if the next president is Republican you can bet your ass that Roe Vs. Wade and other landmark decisions will be quickly overturned with just a few more appointees. If John Paul Stevens (who's 87 years old) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who's 74 years old) retire before the end of Bush presidency, or after the new president takes office and the president is conservative, it will be a conservative court. I don't even think that's up for debate.
"If John Paul Stevens (who's 87 years old) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who's 74 years old) retire before the end of Bush presidency, or after the new president takes office and the president is conservative, it will be a conservative court. I don't even think that's up for debate"
I agree with you on that. If we had one more conservative justice we would have a conservative Supreme Court. But I'm not completely convinced that either Roberts or Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. They've been pretty reluctant to overturn precedent so far.
We're likely to have a larger Democratic majority in the Senate in 2009 so they'll be able to block certain nominees if by chance a republican gets in the White House.
RH,
In your mind, breakdown the libs/conservatives on the court. I see it as 5-4 Conservative which, to me, makes it a conservative court.
I think that Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are conservatives while Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Suiter are the liberals. I think that Kennedy is the lone centrist. I suppose you believe that Kennedy is a conservative, and it's probably true that he sides with the conservative bloc more often than he sides with the liberals. But in the most important cases, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he voted with the liberals.
I think of Kennedy as, at best, center-right. I think he is more conservative than O'Connor which makes this a conservative court in my view.
Bunk only Ginzberg and Stevens are liberals I forgot Stevens in my other post. The other three are moderates all the way. To you ANYONE who isnt a far right knuckledragger is a liberal. That is NOT reality.
Breyer and Suiter are both moderate on business related issues and far left on social issues. Pretty much everybody admits that they're liberal overall. Even the liberal media calls those four justices liberals and calls Kennedy the swing justice.
No they arent, YOU are a neandrathal of social issues. They are mainstream moderates on social issues. Your baselessly asseting otherwise like your basless assertion the media is nothing more than a delusional fantasy you like.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/justices/souter.html
During his years on the bench, Souter gradually established himself as an influential moderate with a respect for precedent and for adhering to the rule of law.
You just think since the rightwing screechmonkeys have moved the whole political spectrum to the right that MAINSTREAM moderation equals liberal it doesnt. There is no possible way to even PRETEND even if we give you the subjective appellation oof liberal to Breyer and Souter it is IMPPOSSIBLE to claim they are as far to the left as Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas are to the right. The tilt is DEFINITLY RIGHT. Just because someone isnt willing to ignore start decis and strike down Roe V Wade doesnt make the a liberal
So because PBS thinks Suiter is a moderate I have to believe it. Are you kidding me? Suiter votes with Ginsburg and Stevens on all the main cases. There's hardly any difference at all between Suiter and Stevens except on a few business related issues. They are in agreement the vast majority of the time. And no, striking down a ban on partial birth abortion that isn't mentioned in the Constitution is VERY EXTREME. The ban is supported by about 80% of the American people. Suiter is ultra liberal and a judicial activist on social issues.
You are delusional. Increase your medication and stop pretending that you are anything but a delusional extremist. YOU have ZERO credibility on who is and who isnt a liberal. Here is a clue. NOT a knuckledragging far right extremist is NOT the same thing as liberal.
Again you are far to biased and rightwing to have YOUR frame taken seriously. OF COURSE we have a conservative court. No one in thier right mind would deny that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, are all VERY conservative. While only Ginzberg can be called anywhere near as liberal as those four are conservative. Four VERY conservative votes, one fairly liberal vote and four moderate votes cannot possibly be considered anything except a conservative court.
Both Ginsburg and Stevens are just as conservative as the four justices you mentioned, and Suiter and Breyer are hard core liberal on social issues and more moderate on business issues. Kennedy sides with the liberals most of the time in the BIGGEST cases. There's a reason why you see so many 5-4 decisions. The court is as evenly divided as you can possibly get.
Pure delusion. NO ONE the court is as far left as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are to the right. Only a complete disconnect with reality itself could allow you to make such a ludicrous claim
Alito and Roberts are both very mainstream. They simply interpret the Constitution without putting their own spin on it. The Constitution was written by very conservative people. We didn't even have much of a federal government back then. They're simply originalists who are interpreting the law instead of forcing their own political view points on others.
You dont know what you are talking about. You NEVER do. There is no possible reasonable argument that Alito OR Roberts are not very conservative any argument that Souter or Breyer are as liberal as they are conservative shows only how much you have lost touch with reality
I agree whole heartedly. I believe it will be Clinton with either Biden, Dodd, or Richards in the second position. I will be doing like you voting for Clinton as the lesser of evils. The Republican candidates are really scarying me with warmongering foriegn policy stances. Every one of the Republican cadidates that was interviewed last night was pushing the Bush line hook line and sinker.
Lynn,
What do you consider "warmongering"?, because if it is admitting that we are in a worldwide, very serious, struggle against Islamo radicals who are out to destroy us, then I would say that is a presidential candidate who I would support regarding that very real threat we face.
The problem with some Democrats is they can't even admit that much, and that scares me.
I think Lynn believes that any candidate who favors using military action as a last resort against Iran is a "warmongor." According to some on the left, we should never use our military unless first attacked.
RH,
I think we can use intelligence and other capabilities like that to prevent attacks, but yes, I do believe that pre-emptive war is "war mongering."
Do you think we should attack Iran? If so, why?
I don't think that we should attack Iran right now. I'm just saying that the option should be left on the table as a last resort. If sanctions and other methods don't stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, military actions may be our only option. Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The President of Iran has stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map," and there's a good possibility that they could sell these weapons to Al-Qaeda who could then use them against us.
What if we found out through our intelligence that Iran was going to strike us within 30 days, and that intelligence was rock solid and irrefutable? And all diplomacy and any negotiations were not heeding satisfactory results?
Do we wait, or do we preemptively attack?
Or strike Israel? Do we support them in any preemptive attacks?
Depends on how they were to strike us and what we could do to stop it. I am a pacifist, but yeah, if there was "slam dunk" intelligence, I might consider it ;).
I realize it's really not a fair question after I typed it here, but your answer is honest, appreciate that. I was referring more to their acqusition of nucleur weapons, if we knew they were very close.......what should we do?
We should knock out their capabilities if we are truly painted into that corner. If we have the intelligence you say we do, we would know exactly where the weapons are and we could eliminate them.
Fair enough. But some on your side would say that is preemptive, especially if Iran retaliated and then blamed us for attacking their "harmless" nucleur sites first.
Tommy,
I know this is impossible since it is a hypothetical, but I would show the American people the intelligence, explain the rationale, and if that was the only (and I stress only) way to prevent something that was guaranteed (and, I know, nothing is guaranteed, but in your hypothetical, it was), I would do it and live with the consequences.
I think telling the American people the complete, honest truth about the goals, basic strategy (meaning what we hope to accomplish) and reasons for military action is the only way anyone should put the lives of our men and women in any type of harm's way.
Well put Fried.
Outta here, good discussion all, thank you.
Have a great weekend.
that tommy runs a tight ship. seems like seven pm rolls around, he's outta here. no weekends. it's almost like a job.
What if we found out through our intelligence that Iran was going to strike us within 30 days,
I don't like answering hypotheticals. Right now Iran is no threat to us.
Does the idea of Iran obtaining nucleur weapons pose any threat to us? Because they certainly are doing just that.
"Does the idea of Iran obtaining nucleur weapons pose any threat to us?"
They don't have nuclear weapons. They say they're not persuing nuclear weapons and they're being monitored by the IAEA.
"Because they certainly are doing just that."
What evidence do you have?
"They say they're not persuing nuclear weapons"
So you're going to believe a guy who denies that the holocaust happens and wants to wipe Israel off the map?
Do you have evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon?
He never said that. That was the way the warmongers translated his words. He only said that the REGIME in Israel should go away, not the country. And we have plenty in the US who deny the genocide of the Palestinians and Iraqis that's going on right now.
He never said any such thing which I have shown the last four times someone posted that talking point. What he said translated out much better as they should disappear from the pages of history. Quoting Khomeini citing an 8th century Persian poet. It had NOTHING to do with a military attack see Juan Cole on this issue he actually SPEAKS Farsi. And we dont have to TAKE anyones word for anythign the IAEA is monitering them.
Sorry. Meant "happened."
Exactly. I don't trust this wacko dictator with his fingers anywhere near nucleur weapons - I don't care if he says there for his sick elderly grandmother's furnace.
Sounds like Bush to me. Opposites attract, and differ only in degree.
Again you show you have NO idea what you are talking about not only is the guy NOT a dictator he has virtually NO POWER. The executive power in Iran is not held by the President, their system is different than ours. Their executive power is held by the group whose name translates as the counsel of experts they are ELECTED. The hardliners lost the last election and only a few of them even survived the REAL executive power in Iran is held by Rafsanjani a man so moderate we used to support him when HE ran for President. His title translates to something like leader of the revolution. Ahmadinejad is NOWHERE near a dictator.
RINO,
Now of all people on this board who could answer for me you aint it. No the Bush doctrine seems to have been adopted by your Republican leaders. That doctrine is one of pre-emtive war not military action as a last resort. Now you have to know that correct?
Which Republican candidate has said that they want to go to war with Iran?
Iran??? Your leaders have been very vocal in their unwavering support of the president's Iraq pre-emptive strike policy. They have all said it was a great idea. Attacking a nation that never attacked us was a lousy idea, and Iran's lucky that we're bogged down in Iraq.
We first went to war with Iraq in 1991. We finished what we started twelve years later. Between that time Saddam violated sixteen U.N. resolutions. It was hardly "a rushed war" as the left likes to claim. We'll likely go the sanction route with Iran before ever considering military action. I haven't heard any Republican candidate say that we should invade Iran without using all other options first.
it sure was a rush by bush to get the u.n. inspectors out of iraq. he didn't like the idea they weren't finding anything.
And Israel is in violation of over 60 UN resolutions, yet we give them guns and money. Your use of UN violations seems VERY selective.
More BS from Rino first since most of those sanctions had to do with WMDs we now know they DID NOT HAVE it is questionable that 16 were violated second Israel has violated more than TWICE that many and I notice we arent invading them anytime soon and Turkey has also violated more sanctions. There isnt any QUESTION we rushed into that war. Bush LIED to America and pushed us into an outright unnecessary invasion. Denying this is denying reality itself.
"According to some on the left, we should never use our military unless first attacked."- RINO Hunter
For example, who?
Did you read any of Fried's posts?
Sorry, I thought you were talking about politicians. Friedbergboys position seems to be pre-emptive war only as a last resort, based on airtight intelligence. Actually a pretty conservative position,by the original definition of the word.
I would agree, that there are very few situatiions where pre-emptive military action is the wisest approach.
Tommy, Their emphasis on a military approach to control these people is misguided. First of all it's impossible to do. I'm peace loving but not a pacifist and I was all for the Afghanistan actions we took but I believe the approach has to be one of maintaining an emphasis on winning the war of ideas. That has to be the central focus. Bush obviously wants a permanent military presence in Iraq and I believe this will not be received well by anyone in the region. The locals will never have respect for a governments that will allow us to be there and the will fight them and they will fight to get us out there. So we will end up having this perpetual side war in Iraq that diverts efforts from uncovering and thwarting real terrorist threats. We've got to cultivate some real partnerships in that region based on respect for their sovereigns and for the people of the region. Judging by the comments and actions of the conservative leadership I don’t think that’s there. If these people don't see that coming from us all the military might in the world won't change a damn thing. When the Iraqis get finished fighting each other and they look around and see all the shiny new US military bases that are currently being constructed in THEIR land they are going declare a truce with each other long enough to drive out what they will certainly consider an imperialistic presence. I understand that that stability in that region is of great concern to us, but our presence cannot be so brazen and ostentatious, and attempts to impose ourselves on these people will again feed extremism and make the terrorist situation worse.
Lynn, Everybody is "peace loving", but I believe that peace is not necessarily the absence of war........sometimes, sadly, war is our only option as has been demonstrated by our history.....but I think we agree that it should be used only when our nation's interests are threatened and all options have been exhausted.
I couldn't disagree more. Everyone isn't peace loving. Some people really really like war. Maybe they like it because there is loads of money to be made or it's used as a means to control and impose their will on others or to gain land and resources. Some actually use it to rally up their own people into a nationalistic fury that can be manipulated. Pick up a history book baby it's loaded with examples. Hitler wasn't peace loving he was a warmonger. The old Soviets were warmongers, Sadam Hussein was a warmonger, and GW Bush is a warmonger. And if these Republican presidential candidates really support the Bush doctrine I’d chop off my own hand before I would pull a lever for one of them because I Bush’s pre-emptive war strategy is warmongering. Last night I watched the post speech analysis and Buchanan was actually talking about how Bush won and it was all this talk of political maneuverings. There are real people dying and suffering because of DC political chess games and that's a terrible sin.
Lynn, Obviously I wasn't referring to Hitler, Hussein or Stalin - I'd hardly say you made your case with those as examples.......but nevertheless, my point is that the state of peace is not always the absence of war - not when it's vital to achieve that peace.
I certainly did make my case, and they were great examples. Of course you'll never concede that because you just have to be right. Some people like waging war. It's a strange and sad truth. All of the imperial powers throughout history waged unprovoked war. Greece, Rome, England. Historically we didn't Tommy. This is the first time we attacked a nation without being attacked by them first. It's against American tradition and that's a tradition that I want to maintain. Well I'm out Tomiester have a good week-end.
"This is the first time we attacked a nation without being attacked by them first"
Huh? Did you forget about Vietnam?
We were allegedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Gulf of Tonkin was a fabrication. Yes, the U.S. has pre-emptively attacked before...also, "Remember the Main!" That's how the Phillipines became a U.S. territory.
Imperialism is I believe on its way out. Instead of invading to take another country's oil, we as world citizens must find how to live within our means and resources.
And that isnt even talking about our several invasions of Nicragua, Haiti, in at the begining of the 20th Century or the two invasions of the Dominican Republic in the thirties and again in 64. No, we have an imperialist past to live down and we ought to stop doing things like that and like Iraq.
At least you refuted Lynn's claim that Iraq was the first time we ever used pre-emptive war.
Yes, I did, perhaps you thought I didnt notice. Lynn is one of the better posters on this site. I disagree with her on that assertion. However in those other cases they didnt LIE about it or PRETEND it was self defense. Bush is a flat out liar and lied about Iraq. He should be ashamed but I dont think he has a shred of decency.
"Hitler wasn't peace loving he was a warmonger. The old Soviets were warmongers, Sadam Hussein was a warmonger, and GW Bush is a warmonger"
Nice Bush-Hitler comparison. What is that, number 1,565? Do you even realize how extreme such a comparison makes you look?
Since that is a valid comparison, the next question becomes: "Is it more important that the comparison be valid, truthful, relevant; or that one maintain one's appearance of moderation?"
I vote for appearance, of course, so I would never compare Bungle to anything small or bad.
Well, at least the Democratic candidates don't use such extreme and idiotic rhetoric. My guess is that if they compared Bush to Hitler they'd get about 5% of the vote.
Yeah. I will take your GUESS for what its worth. MY GUESS is that at least 10% of the public would stand up and cheer. You really live in your own little world dont you. Bush is DESPISED and has very little support. I doubt seriously they would even DROP 5% for saying such a thing. Here is a clue. YOU are a rightwinger. MOST of America doesnt think the way YOU do anymore than they think the way I do.
I didn't say that Bush is popular. He certainly isn't. But no American politician should be compared to Hitler. And quit pretending like your some kind of mainstream person. We're both partisans. I'm very conservative and you're very liberal. My point is that extreme rhetoric like that hurts whichever side uses it. No American politician should ever be compared to Hitler. And if you think that the American people don't care about such extremism, you're simply wrong. The far left lost the Presidential election for the Democrats the past two times.
Still trying to dust off those amazing mind reading powers of yours THAT DONT EXIST? Again YOU are far too rightwing to tell us anything about what the American people think. Also why do you have such a hard time with your reading comprehension. You CAN READ cant you? In the very post you responded to I said most Americans dont think they way YOU do ANYMORE THAN THEY THINK THE WAY I DO. Stop lying so much. Either cough up a single quote where I EVER claimed I was mainstream or admit to being a shameless liar. I dont think for a second my views are mainstream on the other hand I RECOGNIZE that and you seem to think your far right views ARE mainstream. THEY ARENT. I suggest you get over it.
RINO,
Do you realized how funny it is to have someone like YOU lecture me about being extreme or appearing to be extreme. Well it's pretty funny. Pre-emptive war is an extreme foreign policy, historically it isn't unprecedented, but it's unprecedented for America. Now your support of the person that implemented this extreme pre-emptive war policy actually makes you the extremist. It’s probably true that GW believes he’s doing what he’s doing for noble reasons, but you know what RINO European enslavers rationalized that enslaving people was good for them because it introduced them to the superior ways of Europe and brought them forcefully to Christianity. They were wrong and I don’t care what they told themselves. And yeah do a little research about the Viet Nam war before attempting another got ya!RINO,Do you realized how funny it is to have someone like YOU lecture me about being extreme or appearing to be extreme. Well it's pretty funny. Pre-emptive war is an extreme foreign policy, historically it isn't unprecedented, but it's unprecedented for America. Now your support of the person that implemented this extreme pre-emptive war policy actually makes you the extremist. It’s probably true that GW believes he’s doing what he’s doing for noble reasons, but you know what RINO European enslavers rationalized that enslaving people was good for them because it introduced them to the superior ways of Europe and brought them forcefully to Christianity. They were wrong and I don’t care what they told themselves. And yeah do a little research about the Viet Nam war before attempting another got ya!
"RINO,Do you realized how funny it is to have someone like YOU lecture me about being extreme or appearing to be extreme"
Get back to me on that as soon as I compare a Democrat to Hitler.
Are you KIDDING ME? you told us liberalism was a mental disorder and a disease. YOU are WAY more extreme than a Hitler comparison. You are delusional
Um, I think you have me confused with Michael Savage. (Just for the record I don't have a beard and I don't look like a mad man.) I said no such thing. I simply stick to the issues and avoid the kind of hateful personal attacks you use against others.
Ok then you are now saying you are NOT the poster that used to go by the nick evil conservative? If that is true I am mistaken I thought you admitted you were. If not my appolgies
No, that's not me.
Then it was my mistake, I was wrong. I appologize for the baseless accusation
And Vietnam was an elective war just like Iraq, and it ended up with 10X the amount of casualties. Iraq is hardly the biggest foreign policy blunder ever. Compared to Vietnam it's a cake walk.
Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder in American History. Bush has made the world a more dangerous place with his invasion of Iraq and it could lead to dangerous consequences for all of us. This extreme vitriol he has brought upon us is the perfect environment from which radicals can recruit from. Our credibility around the world is shot. Iran's prominence in the region has increased substantially and the Shia dominated government in Iraq is looking more and more likely to align themselves with Iran. And the chances of reconciliation between the Palestinians and the Israelis are close to nonexistent.
Bush has turned America into this devil the radicals in the Middle East claimed we were. The next president (maybe the next few) has a huge task in trying to correct this catastrophic situation.
Also, Hitler thought the extermination of the "undesirables" in society would lead to a thousand years of peace on Earth with Germany at the helm.
Preston, I agree that we may end up with Hillary and your right no Hillary/Obama ticket but I think it may be Hillary/Richardson. I've even heard some mentioning the Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland as her VP.
Lynn, my thoughts exactly!. I'm looking at Obama but have a long way to go before I decide.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I would have no choice but to support her candidacy.
There's plenty of other parties out there. Our choices are not limited to two fascist party candidates.
I never much liked Hillary and she is too conservative for my tastes but she is a very smart lady who has done what she had to do to get the machine behind her and that is hard to beat. Obama can do it but the best way to win the nomination is by getting the DLC and the DNC machines behind you. Hillary has done that.
"I never much liked Hillary and she is too conservative for my tastes"
Wow, that's kind of like me saying that Newt Gingrich is too liberal for me. What more do you want? Fidel Castro can't move here and run for President since he's not a natural born citizen.
And unfortunatly for YOU Idi Amin cant run as a Republican. Get real. Hillary is not a liberal. You calling her a liberal a few dozen more times wont change that. YOU have a very skewed frame. To you rightwing is moderate only far FAR right is conservative and moderate means liberal. You are delusional. Its just that simple. Hillary is NOT a liberal and wishing wont make it so.
I didn't say that she is far left. I don't think that she is. I just think that she's a liberal. But she's not far left like Kucinich.
RH,
I am trying not to be nitpicky, but rather to understand what you mean. What is the difference between a "hard core liberal" and someone who is "far left."
I am only asking because I know we will debate in the future and I would like to know what you mean when you use these terms.
Thanks!
I call Kucinich "far left" because he basically opposes military action under any circumstances. He's basically a Green who runs as a Democrat. He opposes vital national security programs like the Patriot Act, NSA Surveillance, etc. And he wants a completely not for profit health care system. Hillary at least believes that military action is at times justified, supports the main provisions of the Patriot Act, and believes that the insurance companies should at least be involved in health care. To me, she's much more of a mainstream liberal than Kucinich.
Ok, I will leave out an argument about the Patriot Act here and thank you for the distinction.
RH,
I may be far left, in your mind, because my standard for military action is that I would never ever send anyone to fight a battle that I would not engage in myself. That is my standard.
I wouldn't call you far left unless I knew your views on all the issues. I've looked at Kucinich's views on all the issues, and to me he seems pretty extreme. For all I know you may be more moderate on other issues.
Just telling you my views on military strikes. I would never send someone to do what I would not do myself.
Once again you show either you are lying or dont know what you are talking about. Kucinich doesnt oppose vital national security programs. The Patriot act needs some trimming and thats all Dennis wants, he also doesnt oppose NSA surviellence just if it is going to be survielling Americans GET A DARN WARRANT. What is it about warrants that fascists are allergic to? He also doesnt oppose military action for any reason that is ludicrous. Why do you just make up lies about liberals? Why do you ALWAYS misrepresent what they believe in? Are you so insecure about what YOU believe that you are compelled to distort their beliefs rather than argue why you are right and they are wrong? Without your distortions, lies, misrepresentations and strawmen your posts wouldnt make ten words.
"I see. In my opinion Hillary and many other Democrats voted to go to war in 2003 because it was the popular thing to do and now oppose the war because it has become incredibly unpopular."
The authorization permitted Bush to declare war (a violation of constitution) if Saddam would not relinquish his WMDs. Congress never declared war on Iraq, nor were they consulted when Bush pulled the inspectors and commenced the invasion.
You know as well as I do that the Dems who voted to give Bush the authorization knew that it was going to be used to invade Iraq. They were simply going with public opinion. They didn't want to oppose a war that was supported by over 80% of the American people.
You know as well as I do that the Dems who voted to give Bush the authorization knew that it was going to be used to invade Iraq.
Yeah, if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Anyway, by Congress making Bush the decider of war, they abdicated their responsibility under the constitution. All who voted for the authorization should be thrown out of office.
"All who voted for the authorization should be thrown out of office"
Even Hillary?
"All who voted for the authorization should be thrown out of office".
Actually a majority OPPOSED a unilateral attack on Iraq. Less than 60% without UN approval and about 60% OPPOSED invading without either UN approval or support of our allies.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/01/13/028/57956
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/13/opinion/polls/main540574.shtml
Rino,
Again you have a point, but I believe that people who supported the war initially in good faith, and happen to be in total opposition now, have more to do with Bush than any flip flop on their part.
Bush has invalidated any criticism for war flipfloppers in my opinion.....he has nobody to blame but himself, and it's about time he takes responsibility.
You have a good point as well, but it's just the timing of Hillary's conversion that is very suspicious. Hillary was a major supporter of the war for a long time. She supported the war longer than most Democrats. She supported it even after we discovered that there were no WMD's. In a speech she once said that Iraq is the Central Front on The War on Terror. She supported it up until the Democratic Primary started. She then began to fully oppose it. I think she realized that there was no way she could win the Democratic primary unless she came out in full opposition to the Iraq War.
The only problem I have with your comment is the part about the "after we discovered that there were no WMD's". By the time the inspectors left Iraq, I think it was pretty clear to most people paying attention that Bush had lied to start a war.
"What about the fact that Hillary flip flopped on the war? Do you really think that she flip flops less than Romney?"
Yes.
RINO,
Some conservatives don't support George Bush's war and are in fact adamantly opposed to having a war to achieve GW's delusion. They just might vote for some Dems to shut this war down. Now never fear when it's over they will be back home unless you band them for life or shoot them for daring to vote for a Democrat of a RINO.The thing is that a Democratic President won't be any more likely to end the war than a Republican President. They don't want to take the blame for America's defeat in Iraq. They want Bush to take the blame right now, but they don't want to have to accept any responsibility for it.
RINO,
Without a veto proof congress, the only way the Democrats could stop your dear leader is to cut off funds to the troops and they aren't going to do that and leave them without the necessary resources to help them survive while being held captives of GW's delusion. That would be just as immoral as what Bush is doing by holding the troops hostage right now. If the congress had the votes they could institute steps to begin an orderly and responsible pull out. They are not going to cut off funding. Your dear leader will get away with this travesty until enough of us citizens put the numbers of legislatures in DC sufficient to stop the Bush monster.
But do you think that the next President should it be a Democrat will actually get us out of Iraq?
Yes I do.
But do you realize that they'll be taking the blame for America's defeat in Iraq even if it wasn't there fault? The right will paint the Democratic President as the one who lost the Iraq War. In my opinion, neither Hillary nor Obama wants to be painted as a defeatist and will keep troops in Iraq.
RH,
They will be taking the blame for "defeat" from people who would never vote for them anyway.
Its time someone put the interests of the country over their legacy.
Thank You Fried!
Any time, Lynn ;). Peace from Boulder!
Plus, if there is "defeat" their few years in office will be negligible compared to the 6 years GWB was in charge of the war.
This would be like saying Nixon "lost" Vietnam which I don't believe he did.
I don't share this view, but many on the right will say that we were just about ready to win the Iraq War before the Dem President pulled us out. He or she will be labeled as a defeatist, and I think that such a label and a bad result in Iraq could hurt that Dems' chances for reelection.
RH,
If it saves the lives of our troops and prevents future conflicts like this, I am all for it no matter the consequences.
I know people will say that and they have every right to, but they will be flat-out wrong and are disgusting.
The people who will blame the Democratic president (if this scenario happens) have no one to blame but Bush who refused to send the necessary troops to "win" (if they don't believe the war has already been won and we are just occupying).
So, yes, RH, I could care less as long as our troops are alive and ready to defend us if we need their brave service again.
There is no defeat in Iraq. They should just put the blame on Republicans for continuing to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can long after all military objectives were achieved.
"They don't want to take the blame for America's defeat in Iraq."
If anything, this is a defeat for the Neocons and their agenda. If you try to impose your beliefs on a people this is what happens. The Iraqis can decide the fate of their country. They don't need a occupying force telling them how to run their country.
I agree with you that we can't invade every country that doesn't have a democracy and impose democracy on them. The reason I don't want to get out of Iraq RIGHT AWAY is that Al-Qaeda would have a safe haven from which to operate and plan attacks.
Well, I don't think its possible to remove 160,000 troops "right away." The withdrawal, logistically, will have to be gradual.
Moving an army is very easy. They could have the entire force up and moving in days. We'd of course have to leave behind all our air-conditioners and Pizza Huts and beer coolers, but an infantry unit should be able to march within HOURS of receiving the order.
I'm really enjoying Rinohunter's argument here. If I'm reading it right, he has very little confidence in the Dems getting out of Iraq, because his party is so dishonest and malicious that they will destroy the Dems politically if they try to clean up the Repubs mess. That's comedy gold.
Dems won't leave iraq. They've already said over and over their place is to pull out SOME of the troops and leave the rest. The Dems support continued occupation.
70% of Iraq is either Shia or Kurdish and Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Al Qaeda practices a perversion of Islam which requires strict adherences to certain beliefs but the Sunnis of Iraq (approx. 30 percent) are secular. In Conclusion, Al Qaeda has no future in Iraq if we leave.
Exacly right.
What makes you think this is true? There is no demonstrable domestic support for al Queda except for them attacking US in Iraq. The Iraqis were a modern people they were not Afghanistan. They had women doctors, lawyers, judges college professors. IF that is your problem we can make an agreement with Iraq to allow us to attack or bomb any al Queda strongholds in the country. That isnt a thoughtful reason to oppose leaving Iraq.
"IF that is your problem we can make an agreement with Iraq to allow us to attack or bomb any al Queda strongholds in the country"
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it might not be possible if Al-Qaeda completely took over Iraq with help from Iran. Iraq would be in complete chaos if we left right away. Leaving Iraq isn't the magic cure that will just make the situation perfect.
It also might not be possible if their Martian allies armed them with spaceships and death rays. A hypothetical just about as likely as al Queda taking over Iraq.
They don't want to take the blame for America's defeat in Iraq. Rino
Rino there is no issue regarding "defeat" in Iraq. We WON the war, we CANNOT win a civil war where our soldiers don't know their enemy! Insurgents or what ever you want to call aren't walking around Iraq wearing uniforms that tell American soliders if they are friend or foe!
There is no defeat at stake in Iraq. We have achieved all military goals. You warmongers just use that phrase because you dont like it that people dont share your zeal to see as many Americans killed as you can GET killed.
Oh, come on. Don't you realize that there's a legacy at stake here? Gotta "stay the course".
Honesty. What folly...
Now, let's be honest with ourselves, here. Bush didn't act any differently than any other top official would have acted. What did we expect him to do? Sneak away from the base and go strolling around the local market looking for good deals on sandals? I don't think so. No government figure would behave any differently. Bush is being criticized, once again, for being George W. Bush, plain and simple. Weak story, MMFA.
"...plain..."? - no way!
"...simple..."? - we gotta winner!
LF,
Bush is not being criticized in the article. The reporting that Anbar is so stable that Bush was able to fly in there is being criticized here. If Anbar was as safe as the report said, Bush would not have had to do what he did.
You are right, in an unsafe province like Bush visited, he did what any elected official would do.
However, the reporting, not the President is being criticized here.
Your spelling and punctuation were good, but a C+ is the best you can get on your composition, I'm afraid. You missed that the article was NOT about Bush, but about Sanchez and his analysis of the relative safety of Falujah BASED on Bush's arrival there. Therefore, you were marked down for comprehension.
And I get a "D" for repeatedly writing "falujah" instead of "Anbar".
Looks like summer school for me already...
summer school in 08? Thats planning ahead.
No, Rick Sanchez is being criticized for using Bush's trip as evidence of progress.
Your point is arguable. First when Johnson went to Vietnam he was heavily escorted but he didnt just stay on heavily fortified bases. Bush is VERY careful when his pampered butt is on the line. He is just brave with OTHER butts. However if that is what you got from this article you are missing the point. Its fine Bush felt he should stay in a military base. I dont want him risking his life. However to paint it as if Iraq is now so safe he can travel then when that is nowhere near what happened is disengenuous. THAT is the point and it isnt weak. The press should stop pretending that Bush went on a pleasurecruise and sightseeing tour to safe and beautiful Iraq.
here is a link to bush's actual speech from eight months ago. about anbar he said: "local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al qaeda". that is before any surge of troops, so that cannot be a claim for "the surge is working". and that is also the contention of many who have repeatedly said that the iraqis do not want any domination by outside groups and would simply eliminate those who attempted that.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
Don't forget that the guy Bush met with a few weeks ago was blown to bits this week - IN ANBAR!
Sometimes I read these things a second time, and am even more impressed with their stoopid beauty- the following is hard to argue with;
Sanchez:"The president identified Anbar as a place infested with Al Qaeda. So, he sent in more troops. The result: success, enough to have the president fly in there last week. And General Petraeus says that Al Qaeda's presence there is way down."
Yes, in the middle of a civil war in a country we've invaded, it seems the safest place is in a protected zone surrounded by many troops.
It's BS, or stating the obvious, but the purity of it... success!
I think the word sucess, is about to get mugged.
How long will shurb be allowed to hold the english language hostage?
One angle on this whole Anbar story that doesn't come across in a format like Media Matters is the stuff they're not reporting. Or, reporting but de-emphasising.
Considering the fact that Bush is asking us to look at Anbar to make his case, shouldn't the media be taking him up on it? Think of how they focused like a laser on any of Clinton's real and percieved shortcomings and this stuff always becomes so blatant. Imagine it was Clinton making the case about Anbar and then a bunch of Marines were killed there right after? It would have been front page news with follow up stories on the soldiers personal lives and comments from their grieving families. While being 'Fair and Balanced' and just reporting the story, the implication that people would take away is that the President was responsible for the deaths. I'm not necessarily saying this should have been done with Bush, just pointing out the creative choices editors ALWAYS have.
It's the same with the Sheik who was just killed. The picture of him I'm seeing the most, as in my paper today is the same one of him standing with a beaming, smiling Bush just last week. Except, they've cut the President out of the picture. Conservatives often make the case that media outlets are always just obeying the market. But clearly, the picture of the sheik is far more compelling as a selling point with Bush included. It's in fact a pretty strong edit to cut him out considering the context of how the sheik was killed. He poses with the President as a sign of how Bush has Iraqis on board in his recent 'success' and within a week, the guy is killed. THAT'S the story. Or, it could be. But the coverage I'm seeing is intentionally de-emphasising that most obvious angle.
It's something to remember. Media Matters can point out coverage that is blatantly innacurate and clearly slanted. They can count the numbers of 'right' to 'left' opinionators. But sometimes I think it's really the choices the media outlets refuse to make that are the most telling.
If it was so safe to fly in, why was the flight so Top Secret. Why was the man he visited blown to bits by a bomb a day later?
Bush will twist and distort every fact about Iraq as long as he can. The general news media is too lazy to pay attention to this and properly report all the facts. This White House is long on lies and half-truths and short on integrity.
Bravely bold Sir W Rode forth from Airforce 1. He was not afraid to die, Oh brave Sir W. He was not at all afraid To be killed in nasty ways. Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir W. He was not in the least bit scared To be mashed into a pulp. Or to have his eyes gouged out, And his elbows broken. To have his kneecaps split And his body burned away, And his limbs all hacked and mangled Brave Sir W. His head smashed in And his heart cut out And his liver removed And his bowls unplugged And his nostrils raped And his bottom burnt off And his pen-- "That's... that's enough music for now lads,*** there's dirty work afoot*** ???." Brave Sir W ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!") When danger reared it's ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. ("no!") Yes, brave Sir W turned about ("I didn't!")And gallantly he chickened out. ****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet, He beat a very brave retreat.("all lies!") Bravest of the braaaave, Sir dubya!("I never!")
apologies to Eric Idle
Cue the coconuts!