Bush Keeps Revising WAR ON IRAQ Justification

[Psychoblues]

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

 

[nt250]

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.

 

[Psychoblues]

Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful. He chokes on the mince yet you are impressed. Pitiful. Have you already forgotten his words of the past?

Psychoblues

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.

 

[nt250]

Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful. He chokes on the mince yet you are impressed. Pitiful. Have you already forgotten his words of the past?

Psychoblues

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"?

 

[just_sad]

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

 

[Psychoblues]

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

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"?

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

 

[nt250]

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

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Lie by omission. Saddam posessing WMDs was but ONE reason given. The left has dishonestly attempted to turn it into THE reason.

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

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.

 

[Psychoblues]

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.

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.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Wrong. The Operation from day one of the invasion was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. The mission was to search for WMD and destroy them if found, overthrow the dictator regime, and help install democracy. You liberals seem to fail to grasp these FACTS. It did not turn into a democracy thing a year later, it was the mission objective from DAY 1. But who am I to point these facts out, I was only active duty military at the time of the invasion.
The only people doing any revising is you anti-war liberals. You completely dismiss these facts and keep repeating these lies until you get others to believe you.

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.

The rationale was actually a much longer laundry list of crimes commited by Hussein, not just the WMD. But as usual, you ignore these facts. Like repeated violations of letting weapons inspectors on suspected sites. Like violating the no-fly zone rules every week. Like the fact Hussien used death squads to oppress his people. But you liberals dismiss these FACTS and spew your lies in order to promote your political agenda.

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.

If this isn't a struggle between good and evil then what is it Psycho? Are you telling us that regimes like Saddam and Kim Jung Il are "good" and are not evil? Dicators that starve and murder their own people should be left alone?

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.

The reason the war is becoming more and more unpopular has nothing to do with Bush's policies. It has more to do with the fact that our mission there is just about complete. As I stated earlier, our mission was to search for WMD and destroy if found - check. Overthrow Saddam - check. Help establish a democracy - it can be argued either way if that is completed. The way I see it, we tried to give these people democracy, but if they really want it they will have to start fighting for it, we cant stay there forever holding their hand.

"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.

Do you disagree with this assesment Psycho? Or you think we should allow terrorists to seize control of Iraq and all its assets? Where do you stand Psycho?

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.

Once again, Bush stated what the mission objectives were on day one of the invasion. Removing Saddam was one of them, so nothing has changed. This was one of several justifications for the war. But if Bush mentions it the liberal press calls it "shifting his war justification". Wake up Psycho.

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.

Thats because terrorists decided to invade Iraq and prevent our third goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq. The terrorist came to Iraq, what were we suppose to do, run?

"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.

And you disagree with this?

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.

Here we go with the "shifting" term again. Was this in a democrat talking points memo or something? They seem to be repeating this baseless lie over and over until people start believing them. Looks like they succeeded with you Psycho.

"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

I think you're a mindless simpleton who is willing to believe anything the liberal media shovels at you. You gobble it all up to satisfy your never ending appetite to see the destruction of democracy around the world. Your feigned compassion for our dead soldiers and dead Iraqis from the result of this war is exposed with your complete lack of compassion for any people living in complete and utter oppression under regimes like Saddam or Kim Jung Il. You are a fraud and you are a coward, sir.

 

[theHawk]

Just for your own edification psycho, here is the actual objectives of Iraqi Freedom, this was all public that day of the invasion. Pay attention to the highlighted, it may shed some light on your dim memory problems.

Operation Iraqi Freedom
At 9:34 PM EST on March 19, 2003 (5:34 AM local time in Baghdad on March 20), United States and United Kingdom forces consisting of 40 cruise missiles and strikes led by 2 F-117s from the 8th Fighter Squadron (supported by Navy EA-6B Prowlers) and other aircraft began conducting military operations against the state of Iraq designed to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and to remove the Iraqi Regime from power. Less than two hours after a deadline expired for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, the sound of air raid sirens were heard in Baghdad. A short time later, President Bush addressed the American public stating that coalition forces were in the "early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

The name of this Operation for British troops is Operation Telic. For Australian Troops involved, it is Operation Falconer.

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.

Operation Iraqi Freedom consisted of the largest special operations force since the Vietnam War. While the vast majority of special operations forces were American, the United Kingdom and the Australian militaries also provided forces. In northern Iraq there was a significant special operations presence. Coalition personnel worked with Kurdish fighters against the regime. SOF helped bring in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and marked and called in coalition air power on regime targets. Special operations forces were also responsible for attacking a number of specific targets such as airfields, weapons of mass destruction sites, and command and control headquarters. In the south, special operations personnel gave aid to conventional forces and did some of the work in the cities to help the Shi'ia elements.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm




Opps, there I go with the truth again.

 

[Gunny]

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.

You need to quit smoking whatever it is you're smoking laced with whatever it's laced with.:bong420: