2
   

Did Bush change the reasons for Invasion after the fact?

 
 
parados
 
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 11:43 am
Tico on another thread claimed that the Bush WH has NEVER changed its reasons for why it needed to go into Iraq.

This is a simple game.

Those saying Bush has changed his reasoning will post reasons that have changed since the invasion.

Those supporting Bush will have to find that reason in print prior to the invasion.

I'll start with something simple.

On March 22nd, 2003 Bush stated
Quote:
And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

source
So Tico. Your job is to find a statement by Bush prior to the invasion where he stated the purpose of the invasion was to "free the Iraqi people."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,062 • Replies: 94
No top replies

 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 07:04 pm
Oh yeah, GWB was there to "free Iraqis of their oil".
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 07:36 pm
Here's a good one.
Bush: Saddam has 48 hours to leave Iraq.

I like the part about chemical weapons the best.
I asked my friend the scientist and he says that White Phosphorus isn't a chemical. In fact, he's never heard of phosphorus. Neither had the entire Faculty of Science.
Whew.
I thought for a second that he Bush administration may have been hypocritical, but these guys restored my faith in The Great One.

<hey, why is there nothing in between 13 and 16 on my periodic table? It was there a second ago
Damn Rove.>
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:20 pm
parados--

Bush had several reasons as a candidate--and the fact he was willing and vowing to deal with Saddam Hussein is one reason he was elected in the first place.

It is wild how people forget.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:21 pm
Lash wrote:
parados--

Bush had several reasons as a candidate--and the fact he was willing and vowing to deal with Saddam Hussein is one reason he was elected in the first place.

It is wild how people forget.
The object here is to provide a citation Lash. Simply claiming it is true doesn't cut it.

Facts are the ONLY thing that are accepted here. Provide a source, dated from before the war where the reason was stated that we were going into Iraq to free the people.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:28 pm
Iraq: Rebuild coalition to pressure Saddam
GORE: We have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein because he's taking advantage of this situation [in Israel] to once again make threats and he needs to understand that he's not only dealing with Israel, he is dealing with us.
BUSH: The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence, should I be the president.

Q: You could get him out of there?

BUSH: I'd like to, of course. But it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

Q: You feel that as a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

GORE: We have maintained the sanctions. I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Some say they're too weak to do it. But that's what they said about those opposing Milosevic in Serbia.

Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:29 pm
Arafat should limit protests; terrorists should pay a price
On the renewed flare up of Arab-Israeli violence in the West Bank and Gaza, Bush said, "It's time for our nation to speak with one voice." Bush told reporters he "appreciates" efforts made by the Clinton administration to mediate the conflict. Bush also said that it is time for Arafat "to be a statesman" and convince Palestinian protesters to "put down their rocks." For the most part, Bush avoided attacks on Gore. Campaign aides described the situation confronting the United States as extremely tense, and that it would be unwise for them to throw fuel on the fire.
On the USS Cole attack, Bush said, "I am saddened and angered by the cowardly attack on this naval vessel in Yemen. First, our prayers go to the families. It is a constant reminder that people wearing uniforms make sacrifices." Bush said the Clinton administration must "find out the facts" so that the U.S. can take appropriate steps. "There must be a consequence," Bush said.

Source: New York Times Oct 15, 2000
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:30 pm
Bomb Iraq routinely to enforce no-fly zone
Q: What is the message that you want to send with the new bombing of Iraq?
A: The US is engaged in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. We will remain so. Since 1991, our country has been enforcing what's called a no-fly zone. A routine mission was conducted to enforce the no-fly zone. And it is a mission about which I was informed and I authorized. But, I repeat, it is a routine mission, and we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone until the world is told otherwise.

Q: Does this signal a hardening of the US position towards Iraq?

A: Saddam Hussein has got to understand that we expect him to conform to the agreement that he signed after Desert Storm. We will enforce the no-fly zone, both south and north. Our intention is to make sure that the world is as peaceful as possible. And we're going to watch very carefully as to whether or not he develops weapons of mass destruction, and if we catch him doing so we'll take the appropriate action.

Source: Press Conference, San Cristobal, Mexico Feb 16, 2001
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:30 pm
Parados just told me about this thread. I would have been looking for a cite prior to now if I'd known about the gauntlet being thrown. At this point, I may need to start my search tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:31 pm
Nothing yet Lash on the reason we went into Iraq was to "free the Iraqi people." What part of "free the Iraqis" don't you understand?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:35 pm
Found this in a February 2003 speech Bush delivered at the Washington Hilton Hotel:

Quote:
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)


If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry.

We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating under the Oil For Food program, are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF, to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.

We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. (Applause.)

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.


LINK
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:36 pm
parados wrote:
Lash wrote:
parados--

Bush had several reasons as a candidate--and the fact he was willing and vowing to deal with Saddam Hussein is one reason he was elected in the first place.

It is wild how people forget.
The object here is to provide a citation Lash. Simply claiming it is true doesn't cut it.

Facts are the ONLY thing that are accepted here. Provide a source, dated from before the war where the reason was stated that we were going into Iraq to free the people.

Admit what HAS been located. You say you accept facts, but I remember you disappearing a couple of times in the face of being proven wrong.

Two out of three so far.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:40 pm
We're constructing democracy; terrorists can only destroy
Helping construct a stable democracy after decades of dictatorship is a massive undertaking. Yet we have a great advantage. Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear. Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they don't build any. The can incite men to murder and suicide but they cannot inspire men to live and hope and add to the progress of their country.
The terrorists only influence is violence and their only agenda is death. Our agenda in contrast is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East we also make our own country more secure. Our coalition has a clear goal understood by all. To see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations.

Source: Speech on Iraq at Army War College May 24, 2004
______________
Pleasant reading until you've had enough. ENJOY!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:40 pm
Lash,

It appears you don't follow directions well. The point is to provide a concrete statement that shows the stated reason after the war was promoted before the war.

Maybe it would help if you put the "free the Iraqis" in bold in the statement by Bush or anyone in the administration promoting the invasion BEFORE the invasion took place.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:40 pm
It appears you don't know how to behave. You challenged three items. Two have been found. Admit it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:44 pm
Here's that Washington Post article I excerpted in that other thread, parados ... in it's entirety. It appears the obviously anti-war author wanted Bush to make up his mind which of the reasons for the war was the main one.

Quote:
But Which War?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, January 31, 2003; Page A27

The issue is not whether President Bush has "made the case" for war in Iraq, but which Iraq war the president wants to fight. Even after this week's State of the Union address, we don't know.

Bush did make progress on one front. Up to now, those offhand comments he likes to make that drip with a self-involved swagger -- "This looks like a rerun of a bad movie" -- have only reinforced the cowboy stereotypes that undermine American credibility.

On Tuesday he put aside the John Wayne act -- one hopes for good. "This nation fights reluctantly," the president declared in the most effective portion of his address, "because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come."

But Bush still has a problem that goes beyond style: We don't know if this war is primarily about (1) taking weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam's Hussein's hands, or (2) removing Hussein from power, or (3) bringing democracy to Iraq and revolutionizing the politics of the Middle East.

Supporters of war argue that all three goals are compatible. In principle, they are. But because the administration has gone back and forth about which of these goals matters most and how they fit together, its policy has been open to easy challenge.

For example, if this war is only about weapons of mass destruction, then the doubters can keep arguing, plausibly, that as long as the inspectors are on the ground with the threat of force behind them, Hussein will be kept "in a box" and unable to threaten anybody. Why not postpone war as long as possible, especially as war could prod Hussein to use the very weapons we are trying to keep him from using?

If the war is about getting rid of Hussein, then all the arguments about weapons and inspectors are beside the point. Make no mistake: Bush is right about the brutality -- yes, evil -- of Hussein's regime. The best case for this war may be the humanitarian case, the need to rid the world of a tyrant whose regime, as Bush pointed out, tortures children while their parents are made to watch.

The problem, of course, is that Hussein is not the only tyrant the world could do without, and the United States is not prepared to launch a worldwide armed struggle against every dictator. And why would we not be satisfied with a coup that kicked Hussein out even if it brought in another dictator, but one willing to do our bidding where weapons are concerned?

Those who advocate the full-blown strategy of using change in Iraq to transform the Middle East would certainly not be satisfied with such a coup. Their idealistic conception, most forcefully propounded by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, rests on the faith -- the right word -- that American power can install democracy in Iraq and thereby encourage democratic change in other Arab countries. This vision sees the Middle East as in such a mess that giving the region a violent shake is well worth the risk -- and may be essential to working out an enduring peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

If Bush wants support for war, from Americans and from our allies, he needs to tell us which of these wars he proposes to fight. He needs the credibility that would come from candor about American objectives.

As it is, the administration is willing to grasp whatever evidence it can get its hands on to justify a course that seems to have been set long ago. In particular, the administration's relentless effort to insist on some link between Hussein and al Qaeda, no matter what the facts showed at a given time, looks more like a public relations stunt than an honest effort to establish the truth. We already know the administration was willing to go to war with Iraq with or without evidence linking Hussein to 9/11. Bringing al Qaeda back into the picture whenever the polls show sagging public support for Bush's policy does nothing to build trust.

And if our real goal is to transform Iraq and the Middle East, this war is far bigger than the administration is suggesting. It will require a very long commitment of American troops and a lot of help from our allies.

If, as appears to be the case, the administration is split over whether this war is to be transformative or a one-shot blow against Hussein, the president had better decide which way he wants to go before the war starts. And he needs to make his choices public. Our allies need to know. So do the American people.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:45 pm
Meanwhile--

KERRY-EDWARDS CLAIM:"By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war."
CNN FACT CHECK:The source for this count was a Devon Largio, a University of Illinois college senior, who addressed the topic in her senior thesis. A Kerry campaign spokesman initially described this paper as a "doctoral dissertation." The implication in Kerry's speech was that Bush gave 23 different rationales for war, but some of the rationales listed in this student paper are somewhat repetitive- for example "prevent[ing] the proliferation of WMD" and "the lack of inspections" both deal with the threat of WMDs. Largio also lists "the desire to remove the Hussein regime" and "the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator" as separate, discrete rationales. Largio graduated in spring 2004, and now is a law student at Vanderbilt University. The Bush campaign responds to the charge by saying there were indeed many reasons to go to war, including the threat of WMDs.

Source: CNN FactCheck on statements by Bush and Kerry: Oct 29, 2004
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:47 pm
Okay, parados. It appears we've dealt with your "simple" one. Are we ready to move on to something more challenging?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:49 pm
This is good stuff from FactCheck--

CIA chief told Bush "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMD
[On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA director George] Tenet went to the Oval Office to present "The Case" on WMD to the president, Cheney, Rice, & Andrew Card. [When the presentation was done], there was a look on the president's face of, What's this? And then a brief moment of silence. "Nice try," Bush said. "I don't think this is quite something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from." Bush turned to Tenet. "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"
Tenet rose up, threw him arms in the air. "It's a slam-dunk case!" the director of central intelligence said. It was unusual for Tenet to be so certain. Cheney could think of no reason to question Tenet's assertion. Bush said of Tenet's reassurance -- "That was very important."

"Needs a lot more work," Bush told Card & Rice. "Let's get some people who've actually put together a case for a jury." The president told Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

Source: Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, adapted in Washington Post Apr 19, 2004
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 08:51 pm
An oldie, but a goodie!!!

Libya renounces WMDs; anti-proliferation has high priority
The leader of Libya, Colonel Kadhafi, publicly confirmed his commitment to disclose and dismantle all weapons of mass destruction programs, and to allow inspectors to enter Libya. Kadhafi's commitment, once it is fulfilled, will make our country more safe and the world more peaceful.
Opposing proliferation is one of the highest priorities of the war against terror. Terrorists would, if they ever gained weapons of mass destruction, kill thousands-without hesitation and without mercy. This danger is dramatically increased when regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups.

[We] have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences. And another message should be equally clear: leaders who abandon that pursuit will find an open path to better relations with the US and other free nations.

Source: Joint statement with Prime Minister Tony Blair Dec 20, 2003
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Did Bush change the reasons for Invasion after the fact?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2022 at 07:12:37