Did Bush change the reasons for Invasion after the fact?

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.

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.

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.

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.