It's very simple: the hypocrisy is in Bush's accusing the enemy of being willing to kill innocents while obviously we are too. Be it right or wrong that we invaded Iraq, let's just not pretend we weren't (or aren't) willilng to kill women and children to "meet our objectives". Where is the ad hominem?
Obviously Iraq was better off under Saddam, but to say that its all America's fault that "the region has become a magnet for terrorists" is asinine. Though if you couldn't blame the US, I am sure you would Israel. For better or worse Saddam brutally supressed the islamic sickos in his nation, and so did the Shah. Now that they are gone, Iran (and Syria and Saudi Arabia and other nations) have hired and paid terrorists, all over the middle east long before the US entered the region in 1990.
Your statements imply that American soldiers go around and kill Iraqi women and children for the fun of it. You are trying to make a moral equivalency of terrorism by terrorists trained and paid by Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Syrian, etc. interests as well as an Iraqis engaged in a religious war to US soldiers walking on patrols in Iraq looking to take bullets and roadside bombs. You are a fool.
What's done is done. Now what? So kids, should the US pull out of Iraq immediately and if so what would happen? Should I care? Sounds like the illogical, indiscriminate bombing of the youngins would continue and escalate. Sunni versus Shi'ite extermination would certainly happen on a huge scale. I'm all for a pull out myself, although I would hate to see all of the soccer players and fans killed. Soccer bad. Killin' good. If the ET kids don't like soccer and are for a pull out, so am I. If the US is going to have a war, go all out and take all. Take at least something. I can't see the sense of this peacekeeping mission wasting more US money and lives over the well being of the Iraqi citizens. It's better for half of the Iraqi population to exterminate each other than have the US on Iraqi soil preventing it. Sounds liberally reasonable.
If that's what you inferred from my statements then you are the fool. I'm simply calling out Bush on his rhetoric, which seems to disregard the fact that our actions have caused many more times over the number of civilian deaths that occured on 9/11.
Fool, you still blame "our actions" (albeit indirectly) for all the civilian deaths in Iraq, rather than terrorism. Using your logic - blame yourself for all the oil you consume that led the US into Iraq in the first place. I am being sarcastic here, but sadly, I am sure you agree.
Let me try this one more time, a different way ... What number would you place on Iraqi and Afghan women and children who were killed as a result of coalition fire, bombs, hand grenades, rockets, air strikes, etc.? If the number is greater than zero, then Bush is a hypocrit. GWB quote: "These people are willing to kill innocent women and children to achieve their objectives..."
You've made your point - Bush is a hypocrite, you've also made the point that the US (though its trigger happy soldiers) is responsible for all the dead civilians in Iraq.
I added one word to Bush's quote. He did not include that word in his sentence but it's obvious to any reasonable semi-intelligent person that that was what he meant. Innocent civilians are always accidentally killed during wars, terrorists deliberately kill innocent civilians, not understanding the difference is stupidity, pretending not to understand the difference is demagoguery and intellectual dishonesty. PS I am not a Bush supporter by any stretch of imagination.