Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

IMPEACH — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:31:37 GMT

Yes this selfish, self centered idiot has saved his political presence(we will see)at the expense of more deaths, THOUSANDS killed for Bushes GLORY.
Thousands maimed for Bushes Glory.
The whole world in danger for the GLORY of the WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
HE IS EVIL and a KILLER.
Congress do not fund this murder any longer!

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Desmond — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:32:30 GMT

This summer, Secratary Gates gave a speech to the military in Hawaii. He stated then that Iraq would be like South Korea.
I read about that and reported it in a blog.
So, why would any congressman be suprised by what Bush said last night?

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

NO MORE FUNDS — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:34:10 GMT

The Worst President EVER!
THE BEST LIAR EVER!

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Susan,Miami — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:44:34 GMT

Discusting, despicable, monsterous sociopath. No, not Saddam, but our US president.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:47:06 GMT

Ironic that there is virtually no evidence of success except a quieting in Anbar province. First of all, it throws out the "top down" approach toward national unity in favor of making deals with local warlords, thus undermining the national government. Second, these warlords remain sworn enemies of the Shiites and thus we're arming and training yet another faction in the civil war. Third, they're only fighting al Qaeda in Iraq because the locals are Sunni and AQI is a Shiite organization. Fourth, the Anbar program was initiated independently of Washington as a desperation move by local commanders, before the Surge began and therefore has nothing to do with the strategy that is supposedly so successful. Oh well, lying and taking credit for the work of others isn't exactly new to the Bush administration.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Independent, Texas — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:49:07 GMT

(duplicate of post in item that is rolling off the front page)

First Read (and bloggers)

Where is Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute in all this?

Since he was assigned as the "Iraq War Czar" in May 2007, I've seen only one report about him (8/10) where he said that he returning to the draft should be considered.

Why wasn't he there with Patreaus and Crocker?

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

PJ — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:00:00 GMT

How many more must die, for the Bush/Cheney lie?
When a pitcher gets pulled from the game with the bases loaded, those runners still "belong" to him, when Bush leaves office with this mess continuing in Iraq, it STILL BELONGS TO HIM. Anyone who still supports this corrupt administration is either too ignorant to see waht they've done or is complicit in their crimes against humanity.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

H P Boston — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:01:02 GMT

The media and all the TV commentators have "SLAM DUNKED" this whole fiasco.
They are told what to say.
We will find no truth anywhere. The brainwashing has begun(has Always been there) what ever they say will BE!
They want to convince everyone there is no recourse, have already tried to NAIL the Dem's to a cross of failure no matter what they do.

STOP THE FUNDING.

Do the right thing, if you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't, BE DAMMED! We will support you all the way to the White House. JUST DO IT!

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:08:31 GMT

Bush did not say anything different last night, than he has said for the last four and a half years. His latest sales pitch still contained the four main thesis he's been pontificiating to the American People about since March of 2003
a) We have to stay because of our national security
b) We have to stay because we must support the troops
c) We have to stay because we were attacked on 911
d) We have to stay because leaving would "embolden" the terrorists.
First off Iraq never posed a security threat to The U.S. and still doesn't to this day. There is no written law that says terrorists must (or even would) go to Iraq before they come here. So the "it's better to fight em' over there, than it is to fight em' here" garbage just doesnt hold water.
Secondly, "support the troops" is a circular argument. Because the only reason the troops are there to begin with, is because Bush sent them there! He keeps on pushing the responsibility for making decisions onto people like Petraeus. He also keeps on hiding BEHIND "the troops," instead of standing up FOR them. This is HIS war, HE sent our kids there, and it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to recognize that we need to get out.
Additionally, this penchant the republicans (and in particular, Mr. Bush) have for conveniently invoking 911 whenever the possibility of withdrawal in Iraq is brought up, is getting "stale," to say the least. Iraq has/had NOTHING to do with 911. NONE of the 19 terrorists came from Iraq. It's high time republCANTS started defending their position on Iraq without using words and sentances that begin and end with "911."
Furthermore, what emboldens terrorists more than giving them something to shoot at? That's exactly what our presence in Iraq is doing. There was NO insurgency in Iraq, NO al qaeda there, NO unrest in the streets, NO looting, NO secterian violence, NO car bombings and certainly nowhere near the overall CHAOS that now prevails, before Bush invaded. This is yet another one of the redundantly trite mantras that has been trumpeted over and over again since this thing began, and it's absolute non-sense.
In the end, there was/is nothing new in what Bush said last night that would or even should cause people to change their minds about what's happening in Iraq.
This thing needs to end before more of our kids die needlessly to secure a "legacy" for Mr. Bush. Any concious thought or statement to the contrary is completely out of touch with reality.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

msnz911 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:13:23 GMT

Obama, who graduated from Columbia and decided to go back to Chicago to organize poor people around issues, has approached his campaign as an opportunity to build a movement — a movement based in communities around issues that matter.
Why are so many people responding to Obama? Because he is straightforward, and is clearly about a lot more than his own ego. Unlike John Edwards, Obama hasn’t had to “move to the left” or discover that he was wrong about Iraq. Obama didn’t discover unions and the rift between rich and poor after losing an election in 2004.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama has been consistently solid on the key issues — and unlike Hillary, we know, if Obama is elected, where he will be on the issues. (Do we really need a second Clinton presidency, framed by lots of progressive hype, which delivers so little in the way of progressive legislation, and so much to Wall St?) And, perhaps most important, Obama’s followers have the potential — with the support of their candidate — to build a new progressive movement in the U.S. and a new reform movement in the Democratic Party. Obama speaks about his candidacy, and even his possible election as president, as part of the launching of a new movement to change America. The president of the United States encouraging a movement for progressive social change? Now there’s a thought!
There are two ways that we can look at next year’s election. We can look at it as an opportunity to stop the endless mudslide of domestic and foreign disasters that have darkened our horizons during the Bush years. This would be no minor accomplishment. But, next year, we can try to do more. We can look to elect a president who not only looks different, but who thinks and acts differently, a progressive champion who boldly reasserts government’s role as protector and uplifter of the people at home, and who can reinvent American foreign policy as a force for peace, not coercive power, across the globe.
We need a candidate, and a president, who understands that he or she cannot succeed unless the people are standing alongside him — ahead of the powerbrokers and money guys — ready to help enforce their collective will. There is no question that Barack Obama is such a candidate.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Curious, SC — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:14:32 GMT

Do you only approve comments against President
Bush?
Sincerely,

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:20:53 GMT

This Administration has been using "sleight-of-hand" and "shell game" techniques with the truth ever since this war began. Why should we expect any different. Thirty percent of the American public still drinks kool-aid; what should be any different. Most Republicans and one independent in Congress are still lemmings; what should be any different.

I don't know if anyone else can see it but this petulant little rich boy is thumbing his nose at Americans while hiding behind his generals and his party stalwarts, just as he's hidden behind his wealth and family influence all of his life. He is basically saying to the American people, "I am going to do whatever I want and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it; "nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah" as he puts his thumbs in his hears and waves at us.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

GAB, Austin,TX — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:24:10 GMT

Haven't you people been listening? The surge is working, we are down to 1,000 attacks per month!
SHEESH!

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Gary, Franklin, WI — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:31:55 GMT

Bush's address last night was another "Mission Accomplished" moment in this long, mistaken conflict, full of lies, half truths, and failure to take personal responsibility. The "surge" has done little but to delay the inevitable. Invading Irag was the wrong policy decision when first made, and nothing will change that. Instead of maintaining focus on Afghanistan and pressuring Pakistan to help go after bin Laden without mercy, the U.S. has (as of now) wasted five years, hundreds of billions of dollars, lost about 3,800 of our brave volunteer soldiers, and injured nearly 30,000 others. During that time Al-Quada has reconsituted and justice for those killed on 9-11 remains elusive. That's quite a legacy Dubya. I hope the human toll haunts Bush to the grave. Of course, that assumes Bush has a conscience Based on his failure to change course, that remains an open question.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

ryan — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:40:15 GMT

Human life is less than a comodity to this president.
To any of the few remaining bush supporters, define success in Iraq. To our congress, Please stop this madness!

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

HMT-MI — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:45:50 GMT

OOPS he did it again.Smoke and mirrors,lies and half truths.And all with a straight face.But his eyes had the same old smirk.Still covering his ass and is no smarter than he was the day that the supreme court made him the imperial president.Killing his time in office while americans and Iraqis are being murdered.Cunning and evil ,yes,but still a ignorant and narcisistic show off.I too will be glad when he is gone so he can make the big buck speeches he boasts about.This country will need a good scrubbing the day he leaves--his stench has been overwhelming.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

ryan — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:46:00 GMT

I think our president may have lied to us last night.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:54:17 GMT

Did anyone expect anything different from this idiot? This guy has never had to clean up his own mess his entire life. Thanks to all who voted for this idiot.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Flat-earther, Georgia — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:57:53 GMT

We will be in Iraq for a long time; similar to South Korean presence. We need a base of operations in the strategic Middle East. We need to secure a supply of energy; hydrocarbon based. Iraq is ideal, especially since we "left" Saudi Arabia. If we don't do this, we will become a second rate nation, like many European Countries, only we will be part of the North American Union. The next POTUS, whether Dem, GOPer or Indie, will have to continue this course.

I just hope he/she throw a few scraps to the middle class.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

tuck, realityville, kansas — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:59:20 GMT

msnz, obama did NOT vote against authorizing bush....

he didn't get to vote, he wasn't a senator yet.

another overwhelming example of how inexperienced he is..

btw,, you do know that he originally OPPOSED troop reductions, that is before he was for them...

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

KENN"GEORGE IS OMNIPIDENT"O — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:04:32 GMT

He is hoping his mommy will clean up after him like his whole life has been,mommy cleaning george messing up.HE IS A MAN ,I use that word only to describe his physical image,who has never ,NEVER taken the brunt of any mess he has made ,mess up in school daddy to the rescue,mess up in business daddy to the rescue,messing up the war on terror leave it to his mommy,HILLIARY or some one to solve he is going out to the sand box

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

kenn"OH OH"O — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:07:39 GMT

Besides comments against hilliary you dont have much left to talk about

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

rick,ky — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:12:50 GMT

Ryan, it's not the 1st time he's Lied to the American people, nor will it be the Last. Admiral Fallon, is expected to give a Very different veiw of the Debacle in Iraq soon. It was reported on Olberman last night, that Betraeous report wasd just what Bush wanted to give him cover. However, Fallon's upcoming report has a very different assessment.We are all entitled to our own veiw of Any Military man's Veiw's of what is going on 6000 miles from all of us. However, it is becoming more clear why bush put a lotta faith into betraous. He is gonna become bush's latest Scapegoat. A remarkable Military carreer, ( built up from many years of service) undermined for Political reason's. Sad, but TRUE! The war czar ( Lute) is staying in the Bunker, to avoid any incoming artillery so he can Retire with his Dignity INTACT. Not so for betraous!" DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

twostepcub — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:16:00 GMT

I'm glad the big-name media has already decided for us that Bush "won" and will get his way. Why don't you guys also call the baseball games in the second inning?

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Sharon, Ft. Myers, FL — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:18:12 GMT

Why does it come as a big surprise to anyone that Bush's intention all along was to establish a permanent presence in Iraq? Oh duh... we went into Iraq and now we're stuck there...he knew we'd be stuck there because EVERYONE TOLD HIM SO before we went in. It was part of the the plan. The bases are already under construction and Halliberton's moving its headquarters to Dubai. Bush and Cheney have "big oil interests" stamped all over them and have spent the last six years positioning themselves and their cronies for post presidency enrichment. George needs to replenish his $21 million coffers...what a surprise!

What's really amazing is that despite his consistent record as a LIAR it still enrages us every time he tells a new and bigger one. Perhaps its because we saw it coming and couldn't stop it.

Congress needs to pull the plug on the president, not the troops. Stop George now. Then deal with restabilizing the middle east. Let's face it...like it or not we're in for the long haul.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:36:09 GMT

"How do you know when President Bush is lying? Is he moving his lips?"... Not really that funny because it is so true but at least it seems everyone finally really sees it for what it is - habitual, sociopathic, self-indulgent, without a conscience lying. The trouble is he gets away with it.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

jus sayin — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:39:25 GMT

Saw pat buchanan on tv and he says bush is an idealogue(other idealogues--hitler,stalin,obd,castro, get the idea) of course pat is an idealogue too.(idealogue= fanatic, lunatic, insane)

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Lee Holmes — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:10:35 GMT

If he has ''lied'' then it should be easy to present these using specific example. Not more lame rhetoric. Obamas ''fears''are justified,as it must be so. He or Hillary,who demand sudden withdrawl, will have to take responsibility for what is the utilizing of a military tactic and strategy that they alone will create,indeed,have already alluded to.These forget that they could as easily decide to stay and slug it out. If they choose rapid withdrawl,as evidenced by Reeds[D-RI] remarks last night,they they will take responsibility for the result,without attempting to preemptively weasel out of taking it.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Dave M., Miamisburg, OH — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:11:13 GMT

The biggest problem I have with this whole Iraq issue is no one is talking reality. Whenever someone uses the word "victory" in conjunction with the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq, we have a problem.

There is no victory to be won. Salvage a less than disastrous outcome? Yes, maybe. But Victory? C'mon. How can there be victory when there really is no war. There is no military objective here. There is not going to be, regardless of how long our troops stay, a victor.

We have no "enemies" in Iraq. Sure, we're not liked, but that's because we're an occupying force. We're somewhere we don't belong, and we're just getting in the way.

Stop this nonsense talk of victory and then maybe some serious policy discussions can begin.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

GAB, Austin, TX — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:18:30 GMT

Thats funny ryan...that man has told so many lies he doesnt know what the truth is any more!

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

K. Nelson, Albany NY — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:19:17 GMT

One of President Bush's best speeches ever. I'm proud to have him as my President.

He's not a cut and runner like those flip flopper, two faced, unpatriotic DemocRATS. Now if we can just impeach these two lunatic senators of ours, we'll be in good shape.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Ivory Dayton, OH — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:29:35 GMT

President Bush is shameless & he is holding America hostage for his own political legacy.Mean while the best & brightest of our young people are paying the cost because he is the Commander-in- Chief. Wake up America & stop this insanity, Iraq will be here & still fighting some one else probably Iran. This is George Bush's War but he wants to give it to some one else. He has failed & his policy is flawed there will be no winners here, only death & destruction await. No is safe with the "Decider" in charge no mission accomplised, no way forward it goes on & on with no end in sight it' America's Purgatory.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

VRWC, WA — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:44:30 GMT

Goodness, I long for the good ole' days of the President getting a hummer in the Oval Office and spooging on the dress of a youth. The many persons who plead the fifth. The many people who met their early demise. The selling of missile technology to China. The selling of nuclear technology to North Korea. The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The expeditious retreat from Somalia when our soldier's dead body was drug through the streets. The acceptance of Chinese money for the election. The criticism of a previous administration for not going into Baghdad. The changing of US policy of Iraq regime change. The theft of antiquities from the Whitehouse. Boy...How I miss those days.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

nuanced — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:06:36 GMT

I commented to my wife last night, who would have thought that Pat Buchanan would look like a moderate compared to George Bush

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

nuanced — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:08:55 GMT

Yes isn't it amazing VRWC, that all those things pale in comparison to the horrors of George Bush.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:13:38 GMT

Sharon, Ft. Myers, FL-I agree with everything in your post except for
"..like it or not we're in for the long haul."

I DON"T like it and me and mine are NOT in it for the long haul.
Not with my kids and grand kids blood!
Not with my tax dollars!
The troops need to come out as quickly as safety allows.
If the civil war escalates, and that is IF, then we need to accept responsibility as a country for this huge avoidable mistake.
As far as I am concerned we should send Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz to The Haig in chains and in disgrace for trial.
It is no surprise to me that this war is for a permanent presence in the middle east. Millions of us have believed and said so since 2003. If not for a spineless politically expedient congress we may have avoided this or at least the Democrats would have had some moral high ground to stand on. We have spent billions building the largest US embassy on the planet in the Green zone and are constructing as many as 14 permanent bases. Joe Lieberman, the distinguished Senator from Tel Aviv, demands of General Petraeous if we should begin incursions into Iran. I am tired of this bulls**t from both parties. None of this means we need to let the bastards get away with any of it.
We don't have to be in it for the long haul if we don't want to be. What are we afraid of, jeopardizing this countries reputation? HAAAA! Its gone! What is it you think that we have to lose that Bush and Co. haven't already soiled and disgraced beyond repair!

Get up! Stand up!
October 27 -
National Mobilization
to End the War in Iraq
10 Massive Demonstrations for Peace
Across the U.S.
Boston
Chicago
New York
Washington
San Francisco
Seattle
Others Pending

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

R.Merrell — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:18:48 GMT

The one and only thing G.W. Bush is good at is "sloganeering" (as long as he practices for hours on end in front of the teleprompter with his handlers nearby he and doesn't have to ad lib or appear live before an audience other than one hand chosen by the White house staff.) Catchy phrases like "mission accomplished" and "victory in Iraq" and "I'm the decider" are his stock and trade. Leadership and statesmanship and democracy are not.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Houston — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:20:01 GMT

You forgot to mention the New York Times editorial that compared Bush to a carnival barker for lying about the reason for the troop reduction, which the military already planned on because the current level of troops for the surge cannot be sustained much longer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14fri1.html?ex=1347422400&en=dc5013d0b96d25ab&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[[Mr. Bush’s claim that things were going so well in Iraq that he could “accept” his generals’ recommendation for a “drawdown” of forces was a carnival barker’s come-on. The Army cannot sustain the 30,000 extra troops Mr. Bush sent to Iraq beyond mid-2008 without serious damage to its fighting ability. From the start, the president said that the increase would be temporary. That’s why he called it a “surge.”]]

This latest deception proves that Bush is a pathological liar who will say and do anything to get his way, no matter how many more people die needlessly in Iraq only to save his smirking face.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

thank you moveon.org — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:22:45 GMT

Bush is a despicable pile of dung who needs to be impeached for the crimes he has committed towards humanity. In terms of the food chain he is below pond scum. This includes all the neo-cons, right wing religous fanatics, Rice(female uncle Tom); Darth Vader, Rumsfeld,Rove and all of you lock step idiots/ignorant lapdogs in this blog that idolizes Bush more than a 200 y/o constitution and Bill of Rights.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Class Warrior, D.C. — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:39:50 GMT

Bush gained more time...to slaughter our children to feed his ego and save his face. We've been babysitting the South Koreans for fifty years, and the second we leave, they'll roll over and let the North come in. Iraq will explode, whether we pull out now or in fifty years, because the Sunnis and Shia have been hating and killing each other for centuries---whiat's a few more years to them? Let's get out NOW, before the military breaks into pieces from overstrain, and before any more of our kids have to die for that oaf's ego.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Here's one lie from Bush — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:40:49 GMT

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

"We’ve never been stay the course, George!" [10/22/06 to George Steph.]

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Here's another Bush Lie — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:43:54 GMT

"One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.

Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties. (Washington Post)

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Steve A Jonesboro IN — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:45:26 GMT

Of course the Iraqui non-government wants a long term relation with the U.S. They have an ignorant fool in the white house giving them billions of dollars every month for absolutely nothing, and absolutely no accountability!

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Yet another lie from Mr. Bush — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:47:00 GMT

In his October 6th speech on the War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush said”The United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States.

The plots that Bush claimed his administration disrupted actually had already been abandoned by the time they were discovered.

1. West Coast Airliner Plot. When the plot was disclosed last year, authorities said publicly that they had viewed the claims by captured Al Qaeda chieftain Khalid Shaikh Mohammed with skepticism. They said that, at best, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action. By the time anybody knew about it, the threat — if there had been one — had passed, federal counter-terrorism officials said Friday. To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous," said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines. [LA Times 10/7/05]

2. East Coast Airliner Plot - Lyman Faris. Faris was an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in June 2003 to two felony charges of supporting a foreign terrorist organization. He was charged with plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, but U.S. officials admitted that Faris had abandoned the plot because he deemed it unlikely to succeed. “After scouting the bridge and deciding its security and structure meant the plot was unlikely to succeed, he passed along a message to al Qaeda in early 2003 that said ‘the weather is too hot.’” [CNN, 6/19/03]
3. Jose Padilla. “Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Rumsfeld’s deputy, stressed on Monday that ‘there was not an actual plan’ to set off a radioactive device in America and Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials. Intelligence officials said his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet.” Since being detained in O’Hare airport in 2002, Padilla has not been charged with any crime or permitted to talk to a lawyer. [Daily Telegraph, 12/06/02; Washington Post, 9/10/05]

ed's note: the key word is SERIOUS.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Another one... — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:51:30 GMT

President Bush: “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” (03.25.04)

The Truth:

Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport."

Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which mentioned bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.”

The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6th briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.

Also that spring and summer intelligence reports indicated that

(i) Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out”;

(ii) there was a threat to assassinate Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit using an airplane stuffed with explosives;

(iii) al-Qaeda was planning an attack using multiple airplane hijackings; and

(iv) that bin Laden was in advanced stages of executing a significant operation within the US.

This was included in reports entitled “Bin Laden planning multiple operations,” “Bin Laden’s network’s plan advancing,” and “Bin Laden threats are real” which warned of catastrophic damage.

The CIA’s National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following equipment failure for the morning of September 11th.

In February 2001, the Hart-Rudman report warned that “mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern” and that the US was woefully unprepared for a “catastrophic” domestic terrorist attack.

President Bush refused to act on this report, preferring to await the findings of Cheney’s terrorist task force which failed to even meet before 9-11. The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6 briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Yet another lie from the President — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:52:43 GMT

We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture." - President Bush (Nov. 7, 2005).

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Gee, this was real tough finding another lie from the President — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:55:53 GMT

These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill. (President Bush 06/20/05)

The Truth:

Defense Department Data. Counsel for the detainees released a report based entirely on the Defense Department's own data which found:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

2. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

3. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

More — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:56:13 GMT

Concerns about abuse at Guantanamo are based on allegations made by "people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble [sic]." President Bush (05/31/05)

Truth:

The reports of abuse are not based on allegations by detainees but "accounts by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The FBI agents wrote in memorandum that "they had seen female interrogators forcibly squeeze male prisoners' genitals, and that they had witnessed other detainees stripped and shackled low to the floor for many hours." Nevertheless, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said military interrogators know "that any detainees [should] be treated in a humane way, and they have been." (Center for American Progress 6/10/05)

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Still More — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:58:27 GMT

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. President Bush (09/01/05)

Truth

Two Days Warning. The White House situation room received a report at 1:47 a.m. the day Katrina hit, predicting that Katrina would likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. Two days before Katrina hit FEMA predicted that Hurricane Katrina could be worse than Hurricane Pam.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

One More — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:00:11 GMT

LIE: As the budget deficit emerged; Bush assured us that the deficits would be “small and temporary”.
He also stated “I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, ‘Would you ever deficit spend?’ I said, ‘Only – only – in times of war, in times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency.’ Never did I dream we’d have a trifecta.’” The White House repeated this trifecta claim throughout 2002.

FACTS: Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore. Bush’s attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Source: New Republic 07.01.02

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

This is really too easy — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:00:56 GMT

LIE:The Bush administration sold its Medicare prescription drug plan to conservatives in Congress as having a cost of $400 billion over ten years, enabling it to narrowly win passage in December 2003.

FACTS: The White House knew the costs were $551 billion - more than 25 percent higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare’s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration revised its costs estimates to $534 billion.

One month after passage of the bill, the White House revealed that the program costs actually were $534 billion - more than 25 percent higher. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration."

Source: Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh - Knight Ridder 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, CAP Progress Report 03.15.04.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

One more Presidential lie for balance — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:02:24 GMT

One more for the road...and for balance and comparison:

I did not have sex with that woman! Bill Clinton

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

kenn"O — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:06:49 GMT

Unlike thre puckers dems will take responsibilty for the mess in Iraq if we leave .Are the puckers willing to take responsibilty for the past 4 years of this war seems only fair.It cant get worse Darfur is such a red herring that petraus throws out it will never be darfur the two sides are way to well armed in Iraq.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Roger, Oakland CA — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:12:35 GMT

Giving credit: the lies are from http://www.bushlies.net/. There you can read about:

HIDING THE TOLL OF THE IRAQ WAR
SUPPRESSING PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST DATA BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL VOTE
SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF MERCURY POISONING
CENSORED AND DELAYED 9-11 REPORT
SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS
ERASING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL DISPARITIES IN REPORT ON ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE
REMOVING INFORMATION ON PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION
KILLED TREASURY DEFICIT STUDY
SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL HARASSMENT WITHIN THE ASHCROFT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
DELETED FORECAST OF TAX PLAN AS “JOB KILLER”
DELETED FINDINGS OF GLOBAL WARMING
CONCEALED "CLEAR SKIES" ANALYSIS
KILLED LAYOFF REPORTS
DELETED DECLINING MIN. WAGE
FORCED SCIENTISTS TO ALTER FINDINGS ON KLAMATH RIVER WATER LEVELS
RESTRICTING DEMOCRATS ABILITY TO QUESTION ADMINISTRATION
FUNDING ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS – 80% OF WHICH PRESENT FALSE, MISLEADING OR DISTORTED INFORMATION ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
USING SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONS TO SUPRRESS DAMAGING INFORMATION

Lee - you were right...it was easy...My apologies for the avalanche of cuts-and-pastes (and many thanks to MSNBC for posting them), but I think overkill is warranted here.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:29:46 GMT

Congratulations msnz you have made a positive statement about your candidate without slandering the others. I read it all the way through which is something I don't do for the ones who are throwing dirt at another democrat. We should have more like you on this blog.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Al, KS — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:39:29 GMT

I loved the part of Bush's speech where he talked about the 36 nations that were helping in Iraq. With that much "support", surely we can pull most of our troops out. Who's he trying to kid?

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Sai, Houston — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:03:43 GMT

Discusting, despicable, monsterous sociopath.

ohhhh, these are fun. Like the Carnac routine Carson used to do.

Ed MacMahon: "Discusting, despicable, monsterous sociopath."

Carnac: "Define Hillary Clinton is 4 words or less."

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Jf, Daytona Beach — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:24:29 GMT

It seems like he is putting off troop withdraw until next year so that he can claim victory next year before the election. Then he can call the Democrats cut-and -run liberals.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

nuanced — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:33:33 GMT

Anyone going to the march in Washington tomorrow?

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Jim Frego, Grants Pass, OR Capt. US Army (ret.) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:33:40 GMT

Listening to Petraeus and Crocker this week I heard Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that, Al Qaeda will establish terrorist training camps if we leave , Al Qaeda's influence will spread to all the other nations in the region, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda.

How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say have been killed or captured since the "SURGE" began? They could not recall!
How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say are still in Iraq? They do not have a current estimate!
How long did they say will it take to kill or capture the remaining Al Qaeda in Iraq? They will get to Congress in March 2008 with an Estimate!
How has 100,000 Iraqi's per month that are being displaced from their homes since the surge began to refugee camps, other nations to other areas of the same ethnicity affected the reduction in VIOLENCE? It has had some affect but we can not quantify it.
How long did they say will it take to "WIN" the WAR? We can only see 4 - 6 months into the future and we will not have won by then. We will give you a update in March 2008.
Did General Petraeus say the War in Iraq was making us safer here in the homeland? He said: " I'm not sure it is making America safer."

Note: The estimates of the size of Al Qaeda in Iraq according the Brookings Institution Iraq Index was less than 10 in January 2003, about 3000 in July 2006, and about 5000 in July 2007. The Reuters factbox talley indicates we have killed less than 200 since Jan. 2007.
The size of the Iraq Security Force is over 350,000 and over 200,000 of them can operate with minimal or no US Troop Support.What will they be doing if we draw down to a typical peacekeeping force of 45,000 troops?
President Bush mentioned Al Qaeda 14 times in his speech but weaselly or maybe more appropriately he DUCKED answering any of these questions.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

VRWC, WA — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:37:23 GMT

Style over Substance...You big bad Dems...you might scare someone...NOPE...more rhetoric!

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Lies,Damned Lies,And Statistics — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:53:36 GMT

Roger: No problem. Nice to see that at least you made sure that these were culled from leftwinged websites[who have their own agendas,as their opposite numbers at FOX]as well as obsering that a ''LA TIMES''or a ''NEW REPUBLIC''who have already been nailed for peddling their own lies are credited as ''accurate''sources. My observations ,however,bore upon last nights speech. Distill ''lies''from this,if you will.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

GAB, Austin, TX — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:57:06 GMT

This should make all youneocons warm and fuzzy~!

Bush: Maybe U.S. Military 'Just Not Very Good'

WASHINGTON, DC—Departing from his usual hopeful rhetoric during a question-and-answer session with reporters in the White House Rose Garden, President Bush suggested Tuesday that the war in Iraq has not been successful because the nation's armed forces are "just not very good."

"When the decision was made to liberate Iraq, I was going on what my advisers were telling me and what everyone has said for nearly a century—that the U.S. military is the best in the world," Bush said. "But if that were the case, and we did have the most powerful army, navy, marines, and air force on the globe, we would be winning, right?"

The president admitted that he'd been toying with the idea that a thorough lack of quality in personnel, from the top U.S. commander to the lowest-ranked private, is the only way to account for the colossal failure in Iraq, given that everything on the administrative side of the war has been carried out with the utmost care and precision.

"I know the folks on our end didn't drop the ball," Bush said. "The civilian oversight of this war and the plan of attack has been brilliant. There's no doubt about that in my mind. Hate to say it, but maybe our men and women in uniform just aren't what they're cracked up to be."

Bush conjectured that U.S. servicemen and women thrust into the horrifying chaos and violence of Iraq's Sunni Triangle may simply lack the proper perspective and cool detachment needed to implement an effective strategy against the insurgency. The commander in chief also wondered aloud why, for all their vaunted competence, American forces become disillusioned while fighting "for such a just and noble cause."

"I know I should support the troops, especially in a time of war, but if they can't handle the pressure, maybe they don't deserve my support," Bush said. "They're making me look bad."

"On the occasions I've met our troops, most of them didn't seem like they had much going for them," Bush added. "I don't think very many went to college or anything."

Bush said that in the past year he has had much occasion to think about the U.S. military's role in history, which, he recently was forced to conclude, is "overrated." He traced the roots of the misperception back to the nation's victory in World War II.

"We haven't really flat-out won a war since then, and you have to admit even that one was pretty close," the president said.

Continued Bush: "We pretty much have a 3-4 record in terms of important wars, and that's being generous, because I'm counting the Civil War as a victory. We got absolutely killed in Vietnam, which was another war where the leadership at home did a fine job, only to be let down by the troops. Not quite sure what happened in Korea. And I thought we won the first Gulf War, but apparently we didn't, because we're still there."

Shortly after the press conference, the White House announced that an advisory panel comprised of former officials from both Bush administrations and of private military contractors would be formed to devise effective solutions to problem areas in the nation's defense, namely the quality of the soldiers. Some of the likely recommendations include toughening recruitment standards so that not just anyone can enlist, and offering swift advancement opportunities for troops who show less dependence on the support current forces seem to constantly require from the American people. The panel is also expected to recommend that the nation enter into additional costly overseas conflicts as a way for the military to hone its combat skills.

Yet even the most optimistic administration estimates acknowledge that these transformations are years, if not decades away from being implemented. Meanwhile, Bush still appears determined to maintain the American military presence in Iraq, telling reporters that the only way to improve the armed forces isn't to quit, but to "keep plugging away and hope they'll get better at this war business before they all get killed."

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Ralph, Mexico NY — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:57:51 GMT

At the risk of being misconstrued (again), pro and anti Bush folks need to get it through their heads that Bush doesn’t matter anymore. He has made it clear that he does not intend to change the prosecution of this war. We shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists for the same reason that we shouldn’t negotiate with block-heads, not because it’s wrong but because it will not make any difference. If those of us who oppose the current situation want to have any impact we need to focus our attention on the Republicans in congress in senate. They are using Bush’s unpopularity for cover. By demonstrating loyalty (if not fealty) to President Bush in light of his unpopularity they demonstrate what is considered a positive trait while supporting a very bad policy.

If any thing is to change we need to call it what it is, co-dependency. If one can’t get the alcoholic to listen to reason we must confront his enablers no matter how noble they may seem.

So we can all waste our time complaining about our current President, we can hope and dream that our future president will be better or we can focus our time and attention of the folks that matter. Call write or shout to the Republicans to stop enabling and help the democrats demand a cogent strategy. Stop getting fooled into calling for benchmarks for the Iraqi Government and start placing them on the Bush Administration.

Here’s a start:

If you want a vote authorizing funds past January 08 you will by November 07:
1. Convene a summit with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to negotiate a cooperation agreement on stabilizing Iraq.
2. Brief relevant committees (in private) on a comprehensive exit strategy.

If you want funds past April 08 you will by February 08:
1. Report to Congress the new strategy for Iraq.
2. Report on a working framework for regional cooperation.

If the President is unwilling or unable to meet these benchmarks then it should be expected that he resign or face impeachment.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:13:09 GMT

nuanced--Tried but couldn't make it but I am on the east coast in October so I will make the October 27 Iraq Moratorium. 10 major cities.
I don't see Washington on the list yet but Boston and New York are. I hope tomorrow gets some Press coverage.
http://www.oct27.org/sites/oct27.org/files/oct27/October_27.html

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:22:42 GMT

Can't make Tommorow's march? Why not Phone it in?
Reach out and touch someone.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9735

Dates: 9/10/07 - 9/28/07

1: The Phone Protest of 9/2007 should start on the 10th and last through the rest of the month. The protest should be ongoing when the People arrive in DC for the protest on the 15th. This phase, if it is sufficiently robust, should be an excellent preface to the massive turnout on the weekend of the 15th.

2: Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 12:00 Noon and 1:00pm to 5:00 pm for the phone siege. E-mails and faxes - no limitations, no mercy. Flood 'em.

3: The Phone Protest should continue until the 28th. From the 10th to the 28th is likely long enough to really have gotten attention and, if sustained this long could have a very significant impact.

Phones, Faxes and E-mails.

I am figuring that at first we target

* Harry Reid
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
NO conventional e-mail. Use his contact page
* John Conyers
Phone: (202) 225-5126
Fax: (202) 225-0072
e-mail: john.conyers@mail.house.gov
* Nancy Pelosi
Phone: (202) 225-4965
Fax: (202) 225-8259
e-mail: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
* On this page the Million Phone March has the following numbers listed as 24 hour numbers. Doubtlessly a good place to start.

888-818-6641 or 888-355-3588
* Congress.org: Find more contact info here.

Message in a nutshell
Flood the e-mail and faxes with these 3 basic messages:

* IMPEACH !!
* US out of Iraq !!
* No Attack on Iran !!

Note: Be polite and brief.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Utahreb, Veyo, UT — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:17:34 GMT

BIG DUH!!! So Bush is going to leave the mess for the next president to clean up? Who would have ever thought he would do that? A lttle sarcasm there.

I am so ashamed of my country now. I don't even recognize it any more.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

VRWC, — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:25:42 GMT

Gary, Gary, Gary...Your Democrat majority is Viagra challenged.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

VRWC, WA — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:39:18 GMT

All PRO-America anti-jihadist Americans call and email these unpatriotic pigs and demand they apologize and denounce the terrorist loving, French insider trading, George Soros' MOVEON.org NY Times ad. Be as nasty as they are.

* Harry Reid
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
NO conventional e-mail. Use his contact page
* John Conyers
Phone: (202) 225-5126
Fax: (202) 225-0072
e-mail: john.conyers@mail.house.gov
* Nancy Pelosi
Phone: (202) 225-4965
Fax: (202) 225-8259
e-mail: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
* On this page the Million Phone March has the following numbers listed as 24 hour numbers. Doubtlessly a good place to start.

888-818-6641 or 888-355-3588
* Congress.org: Find more contact info here.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Roger, Oakland, CA — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:37:50 GMT

Lies (Lee?) - If you're implying that Bush didn't say those things, that he's been taken out of context, and/or the contradicting evidence is false...prove it. It should be easy to do.

What I've supplied is verifiable. Do some verifying. All you've provided is a blanket generalization of the site and some newspapers. I'm not doing your legwork for you. Hit the google.

As for Bush's speech last night, he continues to conflate the civil war in Iraq with the GWOT.

"We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours."

Those who attacked us have nothing to do with those who threaten Iraq's future. Nor is there evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq is any threat to the US. Conflating 9/11 with Iraq has been a core deception for years.

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

leon houston — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:59:52 GMT

Why do bush and fred republicans hate America???????

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

NoParty, Houston — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:07:30 GMT

I am neither a Republican nor Democrat. I used to ignore politics until recent years, more precisely, until 9/11 and Bush draws the country to the war of Iraq. To me, making a war on Afghanistan after 9/11 makes sense, but making a war on Iraq does not quite make sense. Then Colin Powell made the famous presentation in UN suggested that there might be WMD in Iraq. Now that we’ve found there is no WMD in Iraq, should we admit the mistake and hand over the power to Iraqis and say bye? Here are my questions to three groups of people.

To Bush and Iraq war Supporters:
1. Why does Bush just tell people how he changes his purpose of the Iraq War?
2. Can Bush just tell people what is the end goal of the Iraq war and what is the plan and how long it will last roughly and how much he will spend from now? Just roughly.
3. Why does Bush always make a link between 9/11 and Iraq war?
4. Why supporting our troop has anything to do with supporting the war in Iraq?

To Democrat:
1. How can you be sure that we fail in Iraq War?
2. If one of your candidates becomes our next president, what is his/her plan to pull out of Iraq and what is the political implications for American and the people in Iraq after U.S troop made such a mess there.

To Republican:
1. Why do you have to support the war in Iraq to be a Republican?
2. Why are you afraid of a Democrat becoming a president more than the head of terrorism at large?

Iraq: Coverage of Bush's speech

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:25:35 GMT

VRWC, VRWC, VRWC...Your republican minority and WH is truth challenged. That is why they are the minority and that is why the lame duck quacks so early. Yep, a little bigger majority and we would have more lead in our pencil. But laugh while you can. 2008 is coming. After that your may need to look into penal implants. Fortunately the Republicans have an unending supply of hot air with which to inflate them.