Presidetnt Bush is probably right that democrats in congress are costing american lives with their political gamesplaying. Politics is power, so you can't expect the democrats to suddenly be principled on this issue. They're going to crack a lot of eggs before they finally get their omellette.

They're going to crack a lot of eggs before they finally get their omellette.--Prakike

Well then I guess it's more than fair to constantly question their patriotism , at every opportunity.

What's fair in Dem land must be the law of the land I guess. And frankly once you begin to question their patriotism, there is an almost unlimited supply of ammunition to lob over that way.

Unlimited !

Faster Please. They are objectively nothing more than a propaganda arm of the terror campaign.

I sent an email to President Bush congratulating him on a great speech, and chiding him for taking so long to fight back. I also told him I thought he is a wonderful president, and it is time to get back to the business of fighting, both at home and abroad. I told him that I didn't think a few well-placed remarks telling it like it is would hurt anybody. Fight, man, fight! Snap back when people make stupid and judgmental comments. Heaven knows THEY don't hold back!

I admire Chimpy's resolve, but there are many many arguments for the Iraq war that have been expressed so well by many people ( I think Hitchen's has done the best job). I wish that Bush was more articulate. The Iraq war has been reduced to Saddam had no WMD's and we were misled into believing that he did.

You want a more articulate president?

Of course you do! That's why Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States.

Any republican is preferable to the Hildebeast.

Didn't we just have an election a year ago. Didn't the President lay out his position everyday he was on the campaign trail. Just like the liberals blame Bush for anything that goes wrong, a lot of conservatives basically do the same thing. Can't get a person to understand the obvious. Blame Bush.

Bart - surely you meant to type "Rudy Giuliani?"

Romney's pretty good, though.

(it's too early ... too early ...)

The Dems react...typically:
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/10/democrats_react.phpAnd Sen. Windsurfer Kerry said something like Bush is using "fear and smear" tactics. Ho hum.

And I believe other Dems are outraged that he used Veteran's Day to talk about a war.

Knemes, Rudy does not have a chance in hell.
Maybe a VP, but that's it.

Romney only needs to withstand the "he's a Mormon!" attacks. They'll (and by "they," I mean those people who think its a-okay to bugger each other in the ass at highway rest areas) remind us how the Mormons practice polygamy and how archaic the religion is. But Mitt won't be harmed by that if he doesn't avoid the attacks.

Pelosi was a tad, um, disingenuous today.

Pelosi...Pelosi...
You know, she's a wench that when you were in high school, you might've thought she was a MILF, but now that you're older, you realize what a stupid betty she really is, and you can't imagine having thought that you'd have at that stupid plastic-faced skank...

Although as I said Chimpy is not the most articulate he does have the resolve and determination to follow this thing through. Others who are more articulate may have thrown in the towel by now, Just goes to show how great a man like Lincoln was who was so eloquent and had such strong convictions.

You know if they uncovered direct incontrovertible evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 or a 10 mt nuke in Iraq , it still would not be enough for the freaking Libs.

Okay, so Bush's speech is characterized as an attack on his critics.

The Left criticizes.
The Right attacks.

The Left raises concerns.
The Right smears.

Have I got that right?

Same old speech. Bush is still misleading:

``More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power,'' the president said.

Except, of course, that the IWR vote was NOT to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Bush
s story at that time was very clear: it was all about DISARMING. That is what the IWR was for, as he made clear in this WH press release:

Bush: But I am very firm in my desire to make sure that Saddam is disarmed. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully. The use of the military is my last choice, is my last desire.

More examples here. So the disarming part started with the UN inspectors – and they weren’t allowed to finish their jobs.

You thought I was going to take exception to the "same intelligence" part? Well, that's BS too. Hadley was ripped on it yesterday, today Bush gets his lumps. If you want to understand why this NIE was so, uh SPECIAL, read Jane Hamsher on it.

Bush lied two years ago, and he's still lying today.

More glimpses of truth from the MSM. This is from a Knight-Ridder story on Bush's speech (if you read down far enough):

Before the war, the President and his aides contended Hussein was concealing nuclear, biological and chemical warfare programs in violation of a U.N. ban. None have ever been found.

Hussein, they said, was in league with al-Qaeda and had to be toppled before he could give banned weapons to terrorists.

The administration relied in part on a seriously flawed, hastily written October 2002 U.S. intelligence assessment, which concluded that Hussein was hiding an illegal nuclear-weapons program and stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.

But the administration's assertions about Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda were not supported by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Starve, bitch.

But the administration's assertions about Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda were not supported by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Saddam's ties to islamofascist terrorists are well documented, if you care to look. I doubt he and bin Laden never shared a room, but I don't really care.

Seriously, Tubino, you liberals would get a lot more traction if you argued that the Iraq war was a bad idea for us rather than trying to whitewash a modern day Hitler.

I partly agree with you that there's some spin in Bush's description of that congressional vote, and I can assure you that it fills me with heartache to see that politics is so gobsmackingly vile. As an ex-democrat, I'll say, honestly: good one, Tubino.

But then your honesty takes a turn for the worse as you ignore the fact that Saddam was not cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. His agents even threatened some of them! Tubino, this is an important relevant fact. You're just not being honest by leaving it out.

You're obviously not dumb. But show some integrity, man. I'm starting to understand why so many others on this site have given up debating with.

The administration relied in part on a seriously flawed, hastily written October 2002 U.S. intelligence assessment, which concluded that Hussein was hiding an illegal nuclear-weapons program and stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.

And that, folks, is how inconvenient facts are discarded. The official report is "seriously flawed" and "hastily written", but Joe Wilson's trip is the gospel truth.

Did someone take a dump, or is the fucking asshole who shall not be named post again?

Did someone take a dump, or did the fucking asshole who shall not be named post again?