Bush Keeps Revising WAR ON IRAQ Justification

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Psychoblues, Oct 15, 2006.

  1. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Give this a good read and a thoughtful response. I don't buy all that is said here but I do buy most of it. Overall, it's about as truthful as anything I've ever read coming from a self professed conservative.



    By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Sat Oct 14, 4:23 PM ET
    WASHINGTON

    President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.


    
    Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to Al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

    But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil." Republicans seized on
    North Korea's reported nuclear test last week as further evidence that the need for strong U.S. leadership extends beyond Iraq.

    Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.

    "We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.
    When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.

    After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer," themes Bush pounds today.

    "We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil." Vice President Dick Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.
    Except for the weapons of mass destruction argument, there is some validity in each of Bush's shifting rationales, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who initially supported the war effort.

    "And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it should be."
    Andrew Card, Bush's first chief of staff, said Bush's evolving rhetoric, including his insistence that Iraq is a crucial part of the fight against terrorism, is part of an attempt to put the war in better perspective for Americans.

    The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining the stakes, Card said in an interview. "We never said it was going to be easy. The president always told us it would be long and tough."

    "I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.

    More:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061014/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq

    What do you think?


    Psychoblues
     
  2. nt250
    Offline

    nt250 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,013
    Thanks Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +72
    Did you watch his last press conference? It's long, but here's a link to a video of it:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

    Go down a couple of clicks, it's under Oct 11.

    I'm not a Bush fan at all, but I was pretty impressed with his performance. The man is definately passionate about what he believes in. When he talks about Iraq, he doesn't mince any words.

    I think I'm actually starting to like the guy.
     
  3. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful. He chokes on the mince yet you are impressed. Pitiful. Have you already forgotten his words of the past?

    Psychoblues


     
  4. nt250
    Offline

    nt250 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,013
    Thanks Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +72

    That video is at least an hour long. There is no way you could have watched it.

    What do you mean he "chokes on the mince"?
     
  5. just_sad
    Offline

    just_sad Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    161
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    the hot boring middle east
    Ratings:
    +6

    :clap:
     
  6. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    I saw it live on FoxNews. Even their commentators were baffled by the bullshit.

    What do you mean he "chokes on the mince"?

    I mean he doesn't remember or he doesn't care about his words of the past and that he clears his throat or smirks in an attempt to hide it. This man would not make a good Fry Cook Manager at a McDonalds and YOU voted for him?

    Psychoblues



     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    Why is it that rationals for the war he clearly explained prior to the war are somehow revisions for new justifications?

    Also, its pretty clear that President Bush is responding to why we should be staying in iraq with the answer he has given. Why is telling people why we should stay now a revision of why we went in?
     
  8. nt250
    Offline

    nt250 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,013
    Thanks Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +72
    Baffled by what bullshit? That a reporter would actually ask him if he was sorry he hasn't bombed North Korea yet? That he would be baffled that after more than 3 years of being criticized for "going it alone" on Iraq, he would now be criticized for using multi-lateral diplomacy to deal with North Korea?

    What? He clears his thoat and smirks to hide what? You prefer John Kerry, who can lie so smoothly that he can contradict himself in the same interview and not miss a beat? Yeah, that's a real talent, isn't it.

    I thought he handled himself well. The only thing that really annoyed me during the press conference was his accent. Somebody really needs to help him pronounce nuclear and peninsula.

    Edited to add:

    I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't vote at all in the last election. I live in Massachusetts so even if I did support Bush, which I don't, my voted wouldn't have mattered. I hate John Kerry with a passion so there is no way I would have voted for him. I had recently moved here and wasn't registered to vote here anyway, and considering the two candidates, I saw no reason to bother.
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    BS, That's what I think. All of the reasons stated today are the same reasons stated 3 years ago. It isn't Bush's fault you lefties ignored what what was being said while homing in on the one reason you feel you can exploit.

    And anyone who actually believes Saddam had no WMDs is an idiot.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Surprisingly, I agree with GunnyL. It's BS, Bullshit, but I think not for the same reasons. But, Bullshit nonetheless.

    Psychoblues

    ps. GunnyLiar, I home in on thousands of pieces of information. They all add up to a facade on the part of the CIC and a betrayal on the parts of our representatives that continue to support the Bullshit. As a brother Veteran I can excuse you. You bit the apple and liked it and still do. I bit the apple and continue to question it's advertised goodness. To this day I despise advertisements.


     

Share This Page