Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:06 PM Jul 2013

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."

Glenn Greenwald:

"Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan..."

"I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt."

This is Greenwald's debunk of his support for the Iraq war?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#

From the preface Greenwald cites in the piece at the link.

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

<...>

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812



74 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration." (Original Post) ProSense Jul 2013 OP
"Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks," msanthrope Jul 2013 #1
Kick for everybody's favorite Libertarian. ucrdem Jul 2013 #2
Why do you call him a Libertarian pscot Jul 2013 #5
Socialists want more government--not less. GG is a limited gov. Guy Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #8
Socialists want more government? T/F. Ans- F PowerToThePeople Jul 2013 #14
What parts does he want to limit? pscot Jul 2013 #15
He wants less domestic surveilance AgingAmerican Jul 2013 #68
I've seen oil slicks on pavement with more depth than that Scootaloo Jul 2013 #37
Ya that was a huge amount of failsauce. Rex Jul 2013 #40
No, Socialists want the wealth of a nation to improve the lives of ALL of it's citizens.... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #47
And accomplishing that requires more government than in libertarian paradise. (nt) jeff47 Jul 2013 #61
Actually, it requires a responsive government... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #69
No, because the libertarian paradise had virtually no government jeff47 Jul 2013 #71
Under Libertarian philosophy that's done by the magical "Market".... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #74
"Socialists want more government" AgingAmerican Jul 2013 #67
no it's not. it's math. and I am not against more government, actually. Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #70
A socialist who publishes on the Cato Institute site. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #9
So is Hillary a libertarian? pscot Jul 2013 #12
Does Hillary publish from the CATO institute? Rex Jul 2013 #41
No, and she has no articles on the CATO site, unlike Greenwald. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #50
He's not a socialist: in 2010, he was hoping Gary Johnson would run for President in 2012 struggle4progress Jul 2013 #36
Which is hilarious since fair-taxer, pro-birth Johnson's hardly a progressive. HughBeaumont Jul 2013 #60
I guess he missed PowerToThePeople Jul 2013 #3
Why is it so important to tear GG down? pscot Jul 2013 #4
Why do you have a problem with truth tellers stating truth about Greenwald? Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #6
So you don't want to talk about it. pscot Jul 2013 #10
it's classic blame the messenger stuff and avoidance of the core issue as well nt msongs Jul 2013 #7
Another one-liner, huh? ProSense Jul 2013 #16
It's always important to know if a source has an axe to grind. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #11
Funny, I think that very thing every time I see one of these threads. NuclearDem Jul 2013 #20
You think ProSense has an ax pscot Jul 2013 #22
I expect to see Democrats on a Democratic site, as this is. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #51
Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #13
Wow, you seem upset. n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #19
He was so upset he had to go away for a time out. revmclaren Jul 2013 #45
What eloquent alliteration, though. Now he's outta the thread, spreading sunshine elsewhere... freshwest Jul 2013 #52
question for you, chimpy...When did YOU, personally, first hear of NSA surveillance blm Jul 2013 #23
I second that! darkangel218 Jul 2013 #27
Keep smearing the messenger, and not addressing the policy. eom TransitJohn Jul 2013 #17
Some people praise Greenwald, and some people don't ProSense Jul 2013 #24
Uh, okay? TransitJohn Jul 2013 #29
Prosense, it appears hard for the GG fans to accept GG doesn't stick with the same story Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #18
That must've been when he was making his fortune representing large financial institutions AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #21
I've noticed that sometimes pscot Jul 2013 #25
Alright. AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #31
So that was, like, his 1st pscot Jul 2013 #32
He represented a fundamentalist Church? Um no--He represented Matt Hale, White Supremacist in a msanthrope Jul 2013 #43
How many times will this very old, out of context smear be posted today? last1standing Jul 2013 #26
It's getting ridiculous. NealK Jul 2013 #44
Looking forward to Biden's and Clinton's books repudiating support for the war. Luminous Animal Jul 2013 #28
GG loves the teabagger faction too. sigmasix Jul 2013 #30
You got a link for that, I'm sure pscot Jul 2013 #34
+1 freshwest Jul 2013 #53
I don't think you should blindly trust people who faithfully follow any group or leader NoOneMan Jul 2013 #33
Shrub didn't even look like he was going to make it through his first stolen year, until 9/11. freshwest Jul 2013 #35
The same can be said about a dozens of Democratic Senators and Representatives post 9/11. progressoid Jul 2013 #38
The very next 3 paragraphs undermine whatever point you smarmily thought you had: DRoseDARs Jul 2013 #39
And a lot of people went along with the IWR Rex Jul 2013 #42
then he turns around and smears George W. Bush with tree different books and loads of interviews Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #46
Notice how those books were released during the end of the Bush error Galraedia Jul 2013 #59
To be honest, I don't care and have never cared that much about the GG angle on this story Number23 Jul 2013 #48
Hey! In the run-up to the Iraq War, I was working long, long, long hours and not paying JDPriestly Jul 2013 #49
This. NuclearDem Jul 2013 #54
All I needed to know was that Bush was a liar. Being gullible is not an excuse ProSense Jul 2013 #57
DU rec...nt SidDithers Jul 2013 #55
Oh dear! JNelson6563 Jul 2013 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author Scurrilous Jul 2013 #62
Ohhhh yes NuclearDem Jul 2013 #63
....zzzzzz nt G_j Jul 2013 #58
Oh, my! Scurrilous Jul 2013 #64
Only an infantile mind thinks they can make hay from a statement whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #65
K&R Jamaal510 Jul 2013 #66
GREENSTEIN!!12 frylock Jul 2013 #72
'...as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches' Whisp Jul 2013 #73
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
1. "Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks,"
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:12 PM
Jul 2013

Really Glenn? What the fuck were you watching?





Were you watching this???





 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
14. Socialists want more government? T/F. Ans- F
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:29 PM
Jul 2013

That is not necessarily true. Means of production owned by the workers is what the goal is (imo). Gov does not have to be larger to accomplish this end.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
47. No, Socialists want the wealth of a nation to improve the lives of ALL of it's citizens....
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:39 AM
Jul 2013

Which is why the richest country on the planet shouldn't have ANY of it's children going to bed hungry.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
71. No, because the libertarian paradise had virtually no government
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 02:02 PM
Jul 2013

Someone would have to enforce the laws that distribute the benefits down the income scale. That's going to take more government than a completely "hands-off" libertarian government.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
74. Under Libertarian philosophy that's done by the magical "Market"....
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 02:31 PM
Jul 2013

Employers are FORCED to pay a good wage or NOBODY will work for them.

 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
70. no it's not. it's math. and I am not against more government, actually.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:17 PM
Jul 2013

social security administration is a lot more government than we had before. The government is administering a fund withheld from employers/employees and then disbursed to beneficiaries such as disabled and retired. My sister who was disabled before she died enjoyed social security benefits which were so very helpful.

Why lie to yourself? The "more government is bad" meme is a right wing talking point. Stating that socialism would by its very definition necessitate greater involvement of government in our lives is not a right wing talking point.

struggle4progress

(118,294 posts)
36. He's not a socialist: in 2010, he was hoping Gary Johnson would run for President in 2012
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:22 AM
Jul 2013
Re-rise of the Naderites: Glenn Greenwald’s third party dreamin’ **UPDATE: on Libertarianism
Posted on April 22, 2011 by jreid
... I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. He also mentions Gary Johnson as a unique candidate with possibly the best chance of bringing this coalition together in a 2012 run for president ...
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

And here's Gary, hyping the phoney IRS scandal recently:

Libertarian Gary Johnson: 'this Independence Day feels different'
By Jennifer Harper - The Washington Times
July 3, 2013, 10:16PM
... “This Independence Day feels a little different,” he says. “The news in recent weeks about the IRS using its force against certain targeted groups has reminded us that, absent vigilance on our part, the government will abuse the power it has accumulated ...” ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/jul/3/libertarian-gary-johnson-independence-day-feels-di/

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)
60. Which is hilarious since fair-taxer, pro-birth Johnson's hardly a progressive.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 10:29 AM
Jul 2013

Most of his positions, particularly on economics, are wingding crapola.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
3. I guess he missed
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:15 PM
Jul 2013

1) the "great" presentation by the secretary of state.
2) the smear campaign against a neutral party weapons inspector ending with the sellout of his wife (treasonous act)
3) many more, that I could probably recall if I took a little time.

Basically, he never listened to NPR, BBC, or CNN during this period of time. That leaves FOX as his news source. Ya sure, he is a lefty.

---------------

To Be honest, I have never heard of Greenwald before these post on DU. I have zero background with him. I guess I do not follow "popular" media types much.

pscot

(21,024 posts)
4. Why is it so important to tear GG down?
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:22 PM
Jul 2013

He seems like a truth teller, to me. There are few enough of those as it is. I really do not understand the obvious urgency of the attacks. Why does this guy matter so much?

 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
6. Why do you have a problem with truth tellers stating truth about Greenwald?
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:24 PM
Jul 2013

Seems kind of hypocritical don't you think?

Response to ProSense (Original post)

blm

(113,065 posts)
23. question for you, chimpy...When did YOU, personally, first hear of NSA surveillance
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:35 PM
Jul 2013

programs that included widespread surveillance of American citizens?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
24. Some people praise Greenwald, and some people don't
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:36 PM
Jul 2013

I'm sure you know you're free to start a thread about any "policy" you'd like to address.



Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
18. Prosense, it appears hard for the GG fans to accept GG doesn't stick with the same story
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:31 PM
Jul 2013

And he must think his published words go away, never.

 

AllINeedIsCoffee

(772 posts)
21. That must've been when he was making his fortune representing large financial institutions
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:32 PM
Jul 2013

and thought he'd be part of the in-crowd if he licked enough Bush.

pscot

(21,024 posts)
25. I've noticed that sometimes
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:38 PM
Jul 2013

people just make stuff up, or regurgitate something they heard on a talk show. Do you have a link for information about his law practice? The only thing I've heard is that he defended some fundamentalist church in a civil rights dispute; an ACLU matter. That doesn't sound like corporate law.

 

AllINeedIsCoffee

(772 posts)
31. Alright.
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:58 PM
Jul 2013
Greenwald practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (1994–1995).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Litigation_attorney

The firm is known for its skill in mergers and acquisitions. One of the founding partners, Martin Lipton invented the so-called "poison pill defense" during the 1980s to foil hostile takeovers. Working both sides of the mergers and acquisitions game, Wachtell Lipton has represented blue-chip clients like AT&T, Kraft, and JP Morgan Chase.

The firm is also known for its skill in business litigation. It has handled many of the precedent-setting Delaware corporate governance cases. One of their most recent clients was Larry Silverstein, owner of the two 110-story towers of the World Trade Center. Videos of another one of the founding partners, Herb Wachtell, arguing cases in the courtroom are shown in law school classes as examples of effective trial advocacy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachtell,_Lipton,_Rosen_%26_Katz

Famous alumni of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz includes:

Chaim Fortgang, partner & former Head of the bankruptcy department - "involved in almost every headline bankruptcy of the [1990s] and beyond

Andrew Schlafly, associate — founder of Conservapedia, General Counsel for Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Ed Herlihy — partner, lead lawyer in the Merrill Lynch merger with Bank of America

Chaim Fortgang, partner & former Head of the bankruptcy department - "involved in almost every headline bankruptcy of the [1990s] and beyond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachtell,_Lipton,_Rosen_%26_Katz#Famous_alumni

pscot

(21,024 posts)
32. So that was, like, his 1st
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:11 AM
Jul 2013

real job after law school? And it lasted under 2 years? I'm not sure you can read too much into that.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
43. He represented a fundamentalist Church? Um no--He represented Matt Hale, White Supremacist in a
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:14 AM
Jul 2013

trademark dispute with another Nazi-based Church and after losing that case, defended Matt Hale against the victims of his hate crimes in an anti-Klan suit.

sigmasix

(794 posts)
30. GG loves the teabagger faction too.
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:44 PM
Jul 2013

How anyone imagines that progressives should trust a "journalist" that is a fan of the teabagger faction amazes me. Greenwald is part of a right wing libertarian attempt to smear the president with the evils of the bush administration. They don't care if they are convincing or advancing the truth- all that matters is to take liberal voters out of the election by convincing them to vote libertarian, or not to vote at all because of disgust over these baseless lies and hyperbole. You Betcha'

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
33. I don't think you should blindly trust people who faithfully follow any group or leader
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:12 AM
Jul 2013

Though, we must recognize even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The interesting thing here is that Greenwald's opponents seem to also faithfully, unquestionably, relentlessly follow their own group and/or leader. Maybe that broken clock is right this time, eh?

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
35. Shrub didn't even look like he was going to make it through his first stolen year, until 9/11.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:18 AM
Jul 2013

If anyone remembers 2001. there was a steady stream of scandals breaking every week. The Bush machine and friends were under fire daily, even on cable news.

I remember his cronies that he moved into the White House for the Energy Summit, PNAC, Darth, Rummy and Karl and ENRON, and his faith based initiatives. Oh, he was a busy little POS even before September 11.

His NCLB was about gathering data on children in school for his crummy wars, oh my. He was an outrageous lying POS before the election of 2000, and even years before that screwing up Texas. I remmeber his gang of grifters, making corporate and pollution regulatiohns voluntary, going after states that didn't vote for him, and the freaking DHS, Patriot Act, and on and on.

And the cheerleading warmonger media, cutting coverage for kids with asthma, closing social safety net agencies, stripping rights away, fucking Medicare, SCHIP and student loans rates, rank intimidation, and all of that.

But you see, that's the view from the bottom that the media heroes walk on top of, that they never say a fucking word about. as we're not their class. Because it ain't their lives, no more than the minorities screwed out of their votes between Jebbie, George, Roger and Harris and the gang in FL and elsewhere.

Don't forget 'the jury's still out on evolution,' charter schools, and all those other wonders. That was all going on before 9/11. Excuuse me for going class warfare, with my proletariat rant!

If I keep going I might just get upset. Damn, I need some lof this amnesia RX half the world seems to be taking, as I haven't forgotten a fucking thing. I was paying a lot of attention the whole time, since folks I knew got screwed without the kiss. I didn't have the luxury of all this fancy stuff. Obviously, these things didn't effect the 1%.

It would be nice to only have to worry about a1% brat who didn't get his way. Yeah, it is about class for me. I'm so unfair, so mean to them. They're only killing us and the planet with their little games. Sorry to take it personally.

As if these guys give a flying fuck about my life or the people I care about. Screw the shiny things being dangled by the 1% media. The media will say or do anything for their masters. That ain't me.


progressoid

(49,991 posts)
38. The same can be said about a dozens of Democratic Senators and Representatives post 9/11.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:48 AM
Jul 2013

I eagerly await your condemnation of them as well.

 

DRoseDARs

(6,810 posts)
39. The very next 3 paragraphs undermine whatever point you smarmily thought you had:
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:05 AM
Jul 2013

"It is not desirable or fulfilling to realize that one does not trust one's own government and must disbelieve its statements, and I tried, along with scores of others, to avoid making that choice until the facts no longer permitted such logic.

Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks.

And in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion came a whole host of revelations that took on an increasingly extremist, sinister, and decidedly un-American tenor. The United States was using torture as an interrogation tool, in contravention of legal prohibitions. We were violating international treaties we had signed, sending suspects in our custody for interrogation to the countries most skilled in human rights abuses. And as part of judicial proceedings involving Yaser Esam Hamdi, another U.S. citizen whom the Bush administration had detained with no trial and no access to counsel, George W. Bush began expressly advocating theories of executive power that were so radical that they represented the polar opposite of America's founding principles."



The rest of the excerpt really gets better in destroying your smear.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
42. And a lot of people went along with the IWR
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:11 AM
Jul 2013

although clearly knowing it was an invasion and not legit. What is your point? So what.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
46. then he turns around and smears George W. Bush with tree different books and loads of interviews
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:35 AM
Jul 2013

like this one

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.

Galraedia

(5,026 posts)
59. Notice how those books were released during the end of the Bush error
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 10:17 AM
Jul 2013

Where was Greenwald when it mattered? Glenn Greenwald only released those books and changed his opinion of the Bush administration when public opinion of the administration was at an all-time low. He sold his criticism of Bush for profit and fame.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
48. To be honest, I don't care and have never cared that much about the GG angle on this story
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 02:07 AM
Jul 2013

But I'm kicking and recing because the paranoia and moronic backtracking of everything GG has said and done is just too much for my mind to take. And I would expect for GG to do the backtracking himself, but the folks lining up and looking even more like utter morons than usual to his dirty work for him is just too damn much.

This place is so full of crazy.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
49. Hey! In the run-up to the Iraq War, I was working long, long, long hours and not paying
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 02:08 AM
Jul 2013

much attention to the news. I read the LA Times every morning while exercising. According to that newspaper at that time, the Iraq War was a wonderful idea.

I learned the truth later when I emerged from my office.

And when I did, I quit the LA Times and told them exactly why. Bush lied to me. The LA Times lied to me. And members of Congress at time including Biden, Clinton and many others, in fact the majority of the members of Congress lied to me.

I have never trusted "my" government so much since then.

In this surveillance matter I absolutely do not trust this government. I thought Obama would have the courage to stand up for what is right. He has shown so far that he does not. He is as caught up in lying to please the NSA and CIA and all the rest of the clowns just as much as any other president since WWII. (With maybe the exception of Jimmy Carter. In that instance, I am not certain how honest he is and has been.)

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
54. This.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 04:32 AM
Jul 2013

This is pretty much my story as well.

Unfortunately, this OP is essentially just demonstrating how useful hindsight is as a weapon when someone's got an axe to grind.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
57. All I needed to know was that Bush was a liar. Being gullible is not an excuse
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 09:50 AM
Jul 2013

It's damn sure not an excuse for someone trying to debunk the claim he supported the war when he did.

Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #56)

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
65. Only an infantile mind thinks they can make hay from a statement
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:41 PM
Jul 2013

any intelligent person would find reasonable. Doesn't matter how many times you underline Bush, you got nothin.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
73. '...as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches'
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 02:10 PM
Jul 2013
Glenn Greenwald Supported President Bush As He Signed The Patriot Act!
http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/

The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001 and this is what Glenn Greenwald wrote in the preface to his own book – his words,

This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.

====

oh my, he thinks The Chimperor is eloquent.

insert about a thousand of these here:
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"I had not abandoned my t...