Reply With QuoteYawn
Questions for the President
By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN
Reminiscent of the Hitchcock series, "Stories My Mother Never Told Me", news conferences, whether featuring the President or other high officials, suggest a similar headline: "Questions Our Reporters Never Ask". Soon after 9/11, I wrote an article called Postcards to the President", a plausible set of responses from ordinary citizens around the world following the tragedy. Today the situation is far more gothic, in no small measure because Congress and the press, which should be asking questions, have voluntarily effaced themselves into pliant cheerleaders and sturdy stenographers, instead of providing the adversarial balance so essential to keeping the executive honest.
After being dismayed by the tameness (...and lameness...and sameness) of the few presidential news conferences Mr. Bush has held, I've often wondered why some obvious questions are never asked. I concluded, finally, that it was because the press was at a disadvantage. The president has people preparing his 'talking points'., whereas the press is all on its own; handicapped without a set of corresponding 'asking points'. So here goes, ladies and gentlemen of the press (and you too, Mr. Woodward), the following question bank is all yours:
1. Mr. President, what exactly was the connection between Iraq and 9-11?
2. Mr. President, you are a religious believer, and by implication, a God-fearing man. What, in your view, is the moral code that permits attacking a country which did not attack us?
3. Mr. President, you launched the Iraq War on the claim that there were deadly weapons of mass destruction stockpiled there. Now that that reason has been proven to be false, what compensation do you think the United States owes Iraq for the damage that has been caused in lives and property to that country?
4. Mr. President, you have often claimed, in recent months, that you will withdraw US troops as soon as an Iraqi army is readied. Since armies are usually raised to defend against foreign countries rather than fighting their own citizens, which foreign countries do you think Iraq will need to fight or defend against when such an army becomes available?
5. Mr. President, one of the reasons for your invading Iraq was that it had a powerful army that menaced its neighbors. Now you say that it has no army, and that is the problem. By definition, now that Iraq has been 'disarmed', has our mission not been accomplished?
6. Mr. President, before the war, the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein kept denying that there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while you and your colleagues asserted that there were. From what we now know, on this specific matter, it appears that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, while you and your colleagues were mistaken in your beliefs. Do you think you owe the country and the world an apology for your mistake? Specifically, the Defense Secretary said he knew exactly where these weapons were, and the Vice President said there was no doubt that Saddam now had weapons of mass destruction. What is your standard of accuracy in your administration, and what is the penalty when officials are so casually wrong on matters of such seriousness?
7. Mr. President, do you think that Iran and North Korea, countries that were not weakened by a decade-long sanctions regime, are in your estimation a greater threat than Iraq was in terms of potentially developing nuclear weapons? If so, why did you choose to focus on Iraq rather than these countries?
8. Mr. President, if Islamic fundamentalism is the foremost enemy of America, as you have frequently said, can you explain why it was in our strategic interest to destabilize one of the few regimes in the Middle East that was, whatever its other problems, a secular country, with rights for women, and in most respects far more modern and westernized than many of its neighbors?
9. Mr. President, your administration has often defended the invasion of Iraq even after it was evident that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, stating that that the objective was to bring democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East. Can explain to the American people exactly when this objective changed from that of disarming Iraq to that of spreading democracy?
10. Mr. President, you often cite the vote in Congress for the Iraq War Resolution as an authorization of the invasion of Iraq. Given that the resolution was passed in the context of the WMD threat, and not on the matter of bringing democracy to Iraq and spreading it to the Middle East, is it fair to say that any such authorization ended the moment no weapons were found, and that the current war is without Congress authority?
11. Mr. President, if the Iraqi elections bring forth a government that is Islamic, anti-American and pro-Iranian in character, as seems likely, will the United States accept the legitimacy of such a government? Already in Southern Iraq, Sharia law has been imposed in many parts, according to reports. How does this correspond with your stated desire to democratize Iraq?
12. Mr. President, some US government officials now admit, after initially denying it, that White Phosphorus was used in the Battle of Fallujah. Do you accept responsibility for its use, as Commander-in-Chief. If so, can you tell the American people what steps you are taking to punish the people who used it, given that its use by Saddam Hussein's forces was condemned by our own reports during the '80's?
Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer living on the West Coast. He can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com
Yawn
Blown please. Do you honestly believe all this bullshiat. The questions brought up the esteemed Niranjan Ramakrishnan, who the hell ever he may be, are complete tripe and have been answered. No one on the left will listen to the real answers is the problem.
I've read enough of your posts to believe you have enough common sense to realize there is a terrorist faction in the world that wants to destroy our way of life. Saddam was a heinous murdering ego maniac. WMDs or no WMDs he needed to be stopped. Anyone who thinks, and today's news reported there are those who do, that the world was better off with Saddam in power are flat out crazy.
I really believe you post this drivel just to get a rise out us. You can't honestly sit there and say Saddam should be in power and George W Bush should not.
I've read enough of your posts to believe you have...... common sense
Obviously you haven't read enough
The bait is starting to get stale.
but don't worry, Stevo likes stale bait.
The bait is starting to get stale.
but don't worry, Stevo likes stale bait.
LOL Blown sure is getting him revved up. There could be hell to pay. :argue: :rollside:
Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer/Moonbat living on the West Coast..
Case closed.
NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN- case never even opened.
Questions for the President
By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN
1. Mr. President, what exactly was the connection between Iraq and 9-11?
Saddam supported Islamic extreme terrorists and their families. We were attacted by Islamic extreme terrorists. Saddam cellebrated Al Quedas attacts.
2. Mr. President, you are a religious believer, and by implication, a God-fearing man. What, in your view, is the moral code that permits attacking a country which did not attack us?
After 11 years of deffiance of 17 U.N. resolutions it was not in our best interest to wait for Saddam to attack us. We had enough information from past administrations and our current one as well as the support of other nations to take Saddam out of power.
3. Mr. President, you launched the Iraq War on the claim that there were deadly weapons of mass destruction stockpiled there. Now that that reason has been proven to be false, what compensation do you think the United States owes Iraq for the damage that has been caused in lives and property to that country?
We have freed the country of a dictatorship that prooved deadly to the very people it governed. The world is better off without Saddam and so is Iraq.
4. Mr. President, you have often claimed, in recent months, that you will withdraw US troops as soon as an Iraqi army is readied. Since armies are usually raised to defend against foreign countries rather than fighting their own citizens, which foreign countries do you think Iraq will need to fight or defend against when such an army becomes available?
Iran and Sirea. The army will also need to prevent and defend against civil war.
5. Mr. President, one of the reasons for your invading Iraq was that it had a powerful army that menaced its neighbors. Now you say that it has no army, and that is the problem. By definition, now that Iraq has been 'disarmed', has our mission not been accomplished?
Bush never stated that Iraq had a powerfull army. It was a week army that fell within days. It's leader Saddam Hussein was the one with power.
6. Mr. President, before the war, the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein kept denying that there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while you and your colleagues asserted that there were. From what we now know, on this specific matter, it appears that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, while you and your colleagues were mistaken in your beliefs. Do you think you owe the country and the world an apology for your mistake? Specifically, the Defense Secretary said he knew exactly where these weapons were, and the Vice President said there was no doubt that Saddam now had weapons of mass destruction. What is your standard of accuracy in your administration, and what is the penalty when officials are so casually wrong on matters of such seriousness?
Saddam on many occasions boasted about his weapons. He had threatend not only the United States with them but had used them on his own people, killing hundreds of thousands in the process. We had NO REASON to beleive otherwise. Would you take the word of a maddman as truth and beleived that he had dissposed of his arsenal?
7. Mr. President, do you think that Iran and North Korea, countries that were not weakened by a decade-long sanctions regime, are in your estimation a greater threat than Iraq was in terms of potentially developing nuclear weapons? If so, why did you choose to focus on Iraq rather than these countries?
Iran and North Korea are next. We arent leaving anyone out, they just have to wait in line.
8. Mr. President, if Islamic fundamentalism is the foremost enemy of America, as you have frequently said, can you explain why it was in our strategic interest to destabilize one of the few regimes in the Middle East that was, whatever its other problems, a secular country, with rights for women, and in most respects far more modern and westernized than many of its neighbors?
It was ruled by a maddman with greater plans for destruction of the western world as he so stated in his Dan Rather interview. This was also relevant durring the first gulf war. This time he was to be erraticted. We had had enough.
9. Mr. President, your administration has often defended the invasion of Iraq even after it was evident that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, stating that that the objective was to bring democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East. Can explain to the American people exactly when this objective changed from that of disarming Iraq to that of spreading democracy?
It is common sense that when a dictator is taken out of power, that it must be replaced with a more "western freindly" type of government. it would have been wrong to dissarm Iraq then leave it with it's same dictator or another one. Democracy was the only way to insure it's future.
10. Mr. President, you often cite the vote in Congress for the Iraq War Resolution as an authorization of the invasion of Iraq. Given that the resolution was passed in the context of the WMD threat, and not on the matter of bringing democracy to Iraq and spreading it to the Middle East, is it fair to say that any such authorization ended the moment no weapons were found, and that the current war is without Congress authority?
Congress has voted to stay the course, so NO it it not fair to say.....
11. Mr. President, if the Iraqi elections bring forth a government that is Islamic, anti-American and pro-Iranian in character, as seems likely, will the United States accept the legitimacy of such a government? Already in Southern Iraq, Sharia law has been imposed in many parts, according to reports. How does this correspond with your stated desire to democratize Iraq?
The U.S will accept what government is elected, however, we have a map and if needbe can be on the road back for another party .
12. Mr. President, some US government officials now admit, after initially denying it, that White Phosphorus was used in the Battle of Fallujah. Do you accept responsibility for its use, as Commander-in-Chief. If so, can you tell the American people what steps you are taking to punish the people who used it, given that its use by Saddam Hussein's forces was condemned by our own reports during the '80's?
No punishment whatsoever will be applied to our soldiers. If anything the war effort needs to be stepped up. This would be done by using less ground troops and more air arsenal. The terrorists don't have bombers so we would be at a dirrect advantage.
This illustrates rule #3 in the liberal playbook:
If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth in your own mind.
The real question should be this:
Mr Notabraininishead, you have mentioned the fact that Bush went into Iraq based on the belief that Saddam had WMD's. You neglected to mention that other people also expressed the same belief at the time, people such as:
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Harry Reid
Tom Daschle
John Edwards
John McCain
Britain
Russia
Israel
You have continually ignored the evidence that Saddam did indeed have WMD's solely for the purpose of claiming that "Bush lied". Sir, YOU are the one who is lying. When will you apologize for your lies? When will you resign due to the fact that your work as a journalist is no longer credible? When will you admit your ties the militant leftist movement in this country, and how they influence your work? When will you apologize to the men and women of our armed forces for giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
I think it's funny that Blown calls others "boot lickers"...he is the one who sits subserviantly by the computer like a good lap dog, waiting for the latest batch of drivel to be released by a lefty website so he can cut-n-paste himself into oblivion. It's the only option for someone who is unable of independant thought.
Posting Permissions