Constructive gadfly

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.

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 28, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #15 By: blogic - 10/30/2004 6:56:35 PM
"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.


What a load. What was Bush supposed to "personally" secure the site? How is it that he didn't do his job? Which by the way is a moot point. The Army has *stated* that they blew up over 200 tons of HE at that site!
on Oct 30, 2004
What a load. What was Bush supposed to "personally" secure the site
No,but if he continually questioned, and had meetings with the brass, he might get an idea on what war is all about and its inevitable contingencies.
on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #17 By: stevendedalus - 10/30/2004 11:39:24 PM
What a load. What was Bush supposed to "personally" secure the site
No,but if he continually questioned, and had meetings with the brass, he might get an idea on what war is all about and its inevitable contingencies.


Not to try and put this off on the soldiers themselves ( that's crap!) But why should he have to continually question those in charge? That is supposedly why he put them in charge. They don't do that in the military. Your given an order and you follow it to it's conclusion. No questions asked! Did the upper level brass pass on the order?
on Oct 31, 2004
Drmiler: "The Army has *stated* that they blew up over 200 tons of HE at that site!"

That's not what they said. I saw the live Pentagon briefing where this was discussed.
2 Pages1 2