Commander in Chief Must First Know the Facts

Published on October 28, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Bush said that Kerry jumped to conclusions before he had the facts and that to be commander in chief one must turn to the facts. How illuminating! I suppose, then, that Bush is resigning or does he mean in his simplistic Texan style that it doesn’t matter what the facts are as long as they fit the agenda? For instance:

It is a fact that Bush through his bullhorn at the ruins of the world trade center that he was coming after the ones responsible for the horrendous act.

It is a fact that Bush said that he wanted Osama dead or alive.

It is a fact that Bush was not concerned over Osama.

It is a fact that Bush attacked the Taliban but its leader allowed to escape.

It is a fact that Bush attacked Al Qaeda but its leader allowed to escape.

It is a fact that Bush did not want a homeland security department.

It is a fact that Bush did want a homeland security department.

It is a fact that Bush accepted the bravado outburst “slam dunk” as motivation to invade Iraq.

It is a fact that Bush would wreak shock and awe on Iraq but fall far short of it.

It is a fact that Bush landed on an aircraft carrier to proclaim mission accomplished.

It is a fact that Bush wanted $87 billion for troops and reconstruction in Iraq but didn’t know how to spend it.

It is a fact that Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq.

It is a fact that Bush said there were no WMDs in Iraq.

It is a fact that Bush said there were Saddam ties to Al Qaeda.

It is a fact that Bush said there were no Saddam ties to Al Qaeda.

It is a fact that Bush sent sixty marines to die in vain by ordering the proud Corps to pull out of Fallujah.

Apparently a commander in chief doesn’t rely on facts, he creates them.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 1)

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 28, 2004

Steven, haven't you noticed that stating facts isn't as important as being on the "right" side of the argument? Yes. The pun was intentional!

In any event, great job!

Dr Guy

on Oct 28, 2004

Guess then you are voting for Bush, since Kerry still does not know the facts, but sure is jumping to conclusions!

unclebrother

on Oct 28, 2004

No I would rather the guy that jumps into war to be my president without all the facts. But Just to make sure you understand the point, It was Bush who jumped on the nbc reporter, saying that it proves the ammo wasn't there. And now they actually have video of the discover of the tons of explosvies, from a Minn crew that was there that day.

say bye bye Bush.
But the larger argument here is this, the troops mission was not to get rid of the WMD it was just to invade. As the general said, it was not our mission to secure dangerous stockpile. Wasn't that the reason US invade Iraq.

blogic

on Oct 28, 2004

Nice post, Steven.

I'm just amazed Bush would lecture Kerry on not jumping to conclusions. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

drmiler

on Oct 28, 2004

Reply #3 By: unclebrother - 10/28/2004 9:00:57 AM
No I would rather the guy that jumps into war to be my president without all the facts. But Just to make sure you understand the point, It was Bush who jumped on the nbc reporter, saying that it proves the ammo wasn't there. And now they actually have video of the discover of the tons of explosvies, from a Minn crew that was there that day. say bye bye Bush.

Sorry but the expolsives shown are not the ones that are supposedly missing!

Madine

on Oct 28, 2004

It is a fact that Bush attacked Iraq and captured its leader.

What kind of stupid President listens to his CIA director anyway?

I'll agree that pulling out of Fallujah was a mistake.

stevendedalus

on Oct 28, 2004

I'll agree that pulling out of Fallujah was a mistake.

Well, at least I won one.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sure is a stretch.

Wasn't that the reason US invade Iraq.

Howd'ya figure!

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 29, 2004

Drmiler, "Sorry but the expolsives shown are not the ones that are supposedly missing!"

What makes you come to that conclusion? Everything that I have read and seen says the complete opposite. Secondly, this whole debate of whether there was a media conspiracy to get Bush and whether those explosives were looted before, during, or after the invasion is besides the point. The main issue is whether this war has made us safer or not. Clearly, it has made us less safe. Lastly, the moment the Bush administration forced the IAEA out of Iraq so they could rush to war, the Bush administration took full responsibility for monitoring and securing that site. Period. Even if the ABC affilliate team was not at that particular site, it does prove that high level explosives were looted after the invasion due to the administrations lack of geostrategic thinking and lack of pre-war analysis. Those 277 tons of missing explosives are just the tip of a very dangerous and potentially deadly iceberg.

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #8 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/29/2004 3:34:24 AM
Drmiler, "Sorry but the expolsives shown are not the ones that are supposedly missing!"

What makes you come to that conclusion? Everything that I have read and seen says the complete opposite. Secondly, this whole debate of whether there was a media conspiracy to get Bush and whether those explosives were looted before, during, or after the invasion is besides the point. The main issue is whether this war has made us safer or not. Clearly, it has made us less safe. Lastly, the moment the Bush administration forced the IAEA out of Iraq so they could rush to war, the Bush administration took full responsibility for monitoring and securing that site. Period. Even if the ABC affilliate team was not at that particular site, it does prove that high level explosives were looted after the invasion due to the administrations lack of geostrategic thinking and lack of pre-war analysis. Those 277 tons of missing explosives are just the tip of a very dangerous and potentially deadly iceberg.

This is unbelievable because they (101st) were told to secure the site. For us to believe what is being spouted, we would have to first believe that they didn't do their job. Which I find HIGHLY unlikely! There is a big difference between letting someone loot an office building and letting someone loot a munitions dump. There ain't that much that can kill you in an office building. But there sure is a lot in a munitions dump, now ain't there?

kingbee

on Oct 29, 2004

I'll agree that pulling out of Fallujah was a mistake.

it was actually just one of a sequence of mistakes that began when bremer dissolved the iraqi army. fallouja was home to many of them who now had nothing to lose. it really began to run off the rails when rumsfeld refused to present bush with the marine commander's advice NOT to immediately attack fallouja following the murder and mutilation of those four contract security guys, then was compounded by bush not asking for other recommendations or alternatives. when the marines turned the city over to the fallouja brigade (under command of a former hussein general who was also an insurgent commander) the brigade (insurgents) were provided with 800 rifles, 2500 uniforms, 27 vehicles and 40 radios.

Myrrander

on Oct 29, 2004

*insightful* steven -- great post

mignuna

on Oct 29, 2004

stevendedalus, as promised, i'm letting you know i'm around, reading and thinking.

mig XX

stevendedalus

on Oct 29, 2004

we would have to first believe that they didn't do their job.

Not saying that; they were not ordered to protect the dumps; they just bivouaced there on the way to Baghdad.

Thanks, mig.

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #13 By: stevendedalus - 10/29/2004 2:44:49 PM
we would have to first believe that they didn't do their job.
Not saying that; they were not ordered to protect the dumps; they just bivouaced there on the way to Baghdad.
Thanks, mig.

Then why are they still there?

blogic

on Oct 30, 2004

"This is unbelievable because they (101st) were told to secure the site. For us to believe what is being spouted, we would have to first believe that they didn't do their job. Which I find HIGHLY unlikely!"

Only the surrogates of the Bush campaign are suggesting the soldiers didn't do their job. As stevendedalus said, the soldiers did do their job, it was their Commander-in-Chief who didn't.

I really wish the Bush campaign would stop trying to shift the blame to the soldiers who trying to protect our country.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!