Did Bush change the reasons for Invasion after the fact?

Next items on the list of post war reasons why we invaded. Looking for instances of those claims made prior to invasion.

Shortly after the invasion Bush said

Quote:

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.

Because of you our nation is more secure.

2 items here.

1 - Did we invade for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world?

2 - Did we invade to make the US more secure?

source

Also

Quote:

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

Did we invade Iraq because it was a front in the war on terror?

Then -

Quote:

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

Provide prewar source of Al Qaida was an ally of and funded by Iraq.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

parados wrote:

Lash, sweetie, first of all, there is a thing called "cross posting." It is when one person is composing a post at the same time someone else is posting one. That means that the person that posts the second one didn't see the one posted just previous to theirs before theirs was posted.
....and? You were posting constantly on this issue and disappeared when you were proven wrong. You're very quick to demand someone else provide you with sources--and when they do, you run. There's no excuse for that. It's spread all over this thread for anyone to see.

The second thing Lash, honey pie. You remember when you were told by your mother that if you cover your eyes with your hands it doesn't mean other people can't see you just because you can't see them. It is kind of the same thing when you are on the computer. Just because you are sitting at your computer doesn't mean everyone else is at their computer. You really need to learn patience child.
You were until you were proven wrong.

The third thing Lash, darling, is that you shouldn't exaggerate at the time you don't have any patience. You should have heeded this before you humiliated yourself.
Claims like someone always runs away when you challenge them.
I observed and reported. Others may decide by reviewing the evidence on the thread. No matter to me.
You boasted and sneared about providing sources--and turned tail when they were provided..
And liars can't ever show any evidence to back up their lies.
You should certainly have the inside scoop on this.
It is usually best to apologize after you have lied Lash. So go ahead and do that now.
LOL!!! You owe Tico an apology--whether or not he would say so. I can't believe you would show your face without acknowledging he was correct.

Oh lookie, the day care provider gave Lash a red crayon and she scribbled a bunch of imcomprehensible things on the wall.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

2 items here.

1 - Did we invade for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world?

Yes, but I'm not sure that's ever been given as a rationale or reason for the war. Are you losing focus of your thesis.

Quote:

2 - Did we invade to make the US more secure?

Of course.

Quote:

Also

Quote:
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

Did we invade Iraq because it was a front in the war on terror?

Iraq under Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. Defeating Saddam was part of the war on terror.

Quote:

Then -
Quote:
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

Provide prewar source of Al Qaida was an ally of and funded by Iraq.

You are really reaching, aren't you. Have you fully switched from identifying remarks made by Bush post-invasion which purport to be an attempt to switch horses mid-stream, to just identifying things Bush says which you think can't be proven?

In any event, read these articles about the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda: Case Closed, and The Mother of All Connections, for your edification.

Read this article in case you've forgotten Saddam paid incentive money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
2 items here.

1 - Did we invade for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world?

Yes, but I'm not sure that's ever been given as a rationale or reason for the war. Are you losing focus of your thesis.

Shortly after the invasion Bush stated.

Quote:

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.

Rather hard to fight for something if it isn't a reason.

The rest were meant to be easy Tico. Surely you can find statements by the WH supporting them.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
2 items here.

1 - Did we invade for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world?

Yes, but I'm not sure that's ever been given as a rationale or reason for the war. Are you losing focus of your thesis.

Shortly after the invasion Bush stated.

Quote:
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.

Rather hard to fight for something if it isn't a reason.

Not necessarily. If you are slapped in the face by a bully, you might fight the bully because you think you need to in order to defend yourself from his attack. But you might later say you fought to save face and show the bully you couldn't be pushed around. Maybe later, after you thought about it for awhile, you would say you were fighting the bully for every other person who had been picked on by that bully and not had the courage to fight back. All might be valid reasons why you were fighting the bully, but don't necessarily need to be the reasons why you fought. The real reason is you fought because you didn't want to just stand there and get hit again.

But in other words, you think that because Bush told the troops in this speech that they are fighting for the cause of liberty and peace in the world, that means he is trying to suggest that "fighting for the cause of liberty" was one of the reasons why we needed to go to war? I do not believe that Bush, either before or after the invasion, said that the reason we need to invade Iraq is the need to fight for the cause of liberty.

But what he meant by that statement is also very closely related to the pre-war statement of what the outcome of the war would be, namely the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam.

Quote:

The rest were meant to be easy Tico. Surely you can find statements by the WH supporting them.

I'm sure I can, but why go to the effort? They weren't offered as reasons for why we went to war.

0 Replies

It doesn't matter. If you find them, he'll disappear for a few hours and then refuse to admit it later.

He's been getting his talking points from Randi Rhodes, who's got one foot in a mental asylum, and was blown out of the water when you proved he and his psychotic mentor were wrong.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

It doesn't matter. If you find them, he'll disappear for a few hours and then refuse to admit it later.

He's been getting his talking points from Randi Rhodes, who's got one foot in a mental asylum, and was blown out of the water when you proved he and his psychotic mentor were wrong.

I see they took the red crayon from you and gave you a black one.

Randi Rhodes? Where would I listen to Randi Rhodes? According to Wikipedia she is not on in my area. I see someone acting psychotic but as long as we limit the number of crayons I think she won't hurt herself.

0 Replies

If that were only funny. At least think of something worth reading.

Did you apologize to Tico yet? Did you admit you were BUSTED???

LOL!!!!

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
2 items here.

1 - Did we invade for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world?

Yes, but I'm not sure that's ever been given as a rationale or reason for the war. Are you losing focus of your thesis.

Shortly after the invasion Bush stated.

Quote:
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.

Rather hard to fight for something if it isn't a reason.

Not necessarily. If you are slapped in the face by a bully, you might fight the bully because you think you need to in order to defend yourself from his attack. But you might later say you fought to save face and show the bully you couldn't be pushed around. Maybe later, after you thought about it for awhile, you would say you were fighting the bully for every other person who had been picked on by that bully and not had the courage to fight back. All might be valid reasons why you were fighting the bully, but don't necessarily need to be the reasons why you fought. The real reason is you fought because you didn't want to just stand there and get hit again.

So changing the reason you fought after you fought isn't changing your reasons? Interesting logic Tico. Isn't that precisely what you said did NOT happen with Bush. You claimed he NEVER changed reasons after. By claiming you fought a bully for everyone else is changing the real reason you had before you fought him. By claiming you fought the battle to bring peace and liberty is changing the reason after the fact.

Quote:

But in other words, you think that because Bush told the troops in this speech that they are fighting for the cause of liberty and peace in the world, that means he is trying to suggest that "fighting for the cause of liberty" was one of the reasons why we needed to go to war? I do not believe that Bush, either before or after the invasion, said that the reason we need to invade Iraq is the need to fight for the cause of liberty.

Interesting again. We fought for a reason that wasn't a reason. It appears that your argument Tico is that Bush didn't use any reason other than WMD. Is that correct?

Doesn't that go directly against your posting the reasons as being contained in the Congressional act?

In your bully example the person fighting tries to make out as if they did it for a noble cause after the fact. It appears Bush is doing the same thing after the invasion, making the cause noble because the initial reasoning doesn't play quite as well after the fact.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

If that were only funny. At least think of something worth reading.

Did you apologize to Tico yet? Did you admit you were BUSTED???

LOL!!!!

Lash, It appears you have a reading problem. I suggest you go read the post where I congratulated Tico on finding the quote.

The only one busted is you Lash. You have gone on and on now about how I haven't ever admitted Tico found a quote. "Psychotic" is a term you shouldn't throw around so much. People might think you learned it from your confidential medical reports. :wink:

0 Replies

Lash says Randi Rhodes is crazy. He should take a good look at himself first. He should wish all he had was a reading problem.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Lash wrote:
If that were only funny. At least think of something worth reading.

Did you apologize to Tico yet? Did you admit you were BUSTED???

LOL!!!!

Lash, It appears you have a reading problem. I suggest you go read the post where I congratulated Tico on finding the quote.

The only one busted is you Lash. You have gone on and on now about how I haven't ever admitted Tico found a quote.

But, I DO like saying it. Laughing

Harper/Chrissee/twinpeaksnicki/bluesgirl/etc

Why so many alters?? Who are you hiding from?

I think we all know it's yourself! Projecting your confusion and deep seated emotional problems is very transparent. Even somneone with minimal training in psychoanalysis can see your behavior disorder very quickly. Continuing to refer to me by your sex won't change your reality. You can't force your own deep dysfunctional problems on others. But, I can understand why you'd try.

If you'd like some help with all that, start a thread.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So changing the reason you fought after you fought isn't changing your reasons? Interesting logic Tico. Isn't that precisely what you said did NOT happen with Bush. You claimed he NEVER changed reasons after. By claiming you fought a bully for everyone else is changing the real reason you had before you fought him. By claiming you fought the battle to bring peace and liberty is changing the reason after the fact.

In the examples I gave pertaining to your fight with the bully, you didn't change the reason you fought. What's interesting isn't my logic, it's your attempt to keep up with my logic.

Pointing out you had fought the bully for those who couldn't/wouldn't fight back does not constitute your changing the real reason you fought him, it is simply stating another thing you were fighting for; it does not constitute a change in the reason for your fighting him, or attempt to assert a justification for your fighting him.

parados wrote:

Tico wrote:
But in other words, you think that because Bush told the troops in this speech that they are fighting for the cause of liberty and peace in the world, that means he is trying to suggest that "fighting for the cause of liberty" was one of the reasons why we needed to go to war? I do not believe that Bush, either before or after the invasion, said that the reason we need to invade Iraq is the need to fight for the cause of liberty.
Interesting again. We fought for a reason that wasn't a reason. It appears that your argument Tico is that Bush didn't use any reason other than WMD. Is that correct?

Doesn't that go directly against your posting the reasons as being contained in the Congressional act?

In your bully example the person fighting tries to make out as if they did it for a noble cause after the fact. It appears Bush is doing the same thing after the invasion, making the cause noble because the initial reasoning doesn't play quite as well after the fact.

We fought for "something," but that doesn't have to be a "reason" for fighting. You really seem to be having some difficulty grasping this concept. It is not my assertion that Bush used only WMD as the only reason/justification for the war.

In my bully example, you pointed out another thing you were fighting for, but that wasn't the reason you fought. You identified the nobility of your action, but did not claim the reason you fought was that noble cause.

Bush certainly did allude to the liberation of the Iraqi people pre-war, and he did so in the context of describing the outcome of deposing Saddam, but he may not have uttered the exact words, "we mush invade Iraq to fight for the cause of liberty," But his later saying the battle being waged was a fight for liberty was not an attempt to change the justification or rationale for the war.

0 Replies

Parsing the words doesn't change the obvious meaning Tico.

The American revolution was fought for the cause of freedom
The mink were let go for the cause of animal rights
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.

X was done for the cause of y.
I don't see how any reasonable person can look at the statement and say that y was not reason for x. It might not have been the only reason. It might be a false statement, but the person making the statement is stating that y was the reason for x.

You can't construct any version of x and y that wouldn't seem to indicate that y was a reason for x. The statement might be false but the statement itself would have meaning. Lets try a false statement.
We went to the moon for the cause of cheesemakers everywhere. The statement is obviously false but it makes it appear the the moon trip was because of cheesemakers.

Bush's statement "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.", whether true or not, is obviously a claim that we invaded Iraq, the battle, for the reason of liberty and peace of the world.

You will be far better off parsing Bush's words before the invasion to make them mean "liberty and peace of the world."

0 Replies

What is needed is a thorough investigation into whether or not the admin purposely deceived the American people into going to war.

The Republicans continue to stonewall any atttempt to discern the truth.

BTW if Randi Rhodes is nuts and men like Lash are normal, call me crazy.

(Randi and I are in many ways alike so I can see where Lash LaRue thinks we are both crazy. That is a compliment. Hint: don't take evrything literally.)

With that, Lash LaRue goes back on my ignore list.

When Randi was in Miami, she followed the very popular Neil Rodgers, Neil said she would never make it doing political talk. I know both Neil and Randi personally, both are among the sweetest people I have ever met. (I produced song parodies and comedy for Neil's show in the eighties)

Again, if I am characterized to be like either one of them, it is a supreme compliment.

You can listen to Neil at:
http://neilrogers.com/

He also links some interesting articles not found elsewhere.

0 Replies

parados,

Although Bush mislead us into this debacle, Congress failed in their oversight. OTOH if anyone can recall that time, and recall it honestly. The nation was still gripped in a state of hysteria over 9/11. Even I believed the lies and I recall rhinking people like Janeane Garafolo were bordering on being traitorous in their opposition.

Before the actual invasion, I remeber my sister (virulently anti-war) sayong that Bush was going to invade anyway, no matter what, so he may as well just do it and "get it over with."

There just wasn't ANY mainstream opposition to the war. Perhaps, this is one of the main lessons need to learn. Not to let our leaders play on our fears.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Bush's statement "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.", whether true or not, is obviously a claim that we invaded Iraq, the battle, for the reason of liberty and peace of the world.

I have two responses:

(a) No, it isn't obviously a claim that we invaded for the reasons of liberty and peace of the world.

and,

(b) Even if it were such a claim, I have already pointed out what Bush said on February 26, 2003. Let me give you another quote from that same speech:

Quote:

"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.)"

LINK

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
Bush's statement "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.", whether true or not, is obviously a claim that we invaded Iraq, the battle, for the reason of liberty and peace of the world.

I have two responses:

(a) No, it isn't obviously a claim that we invaded for the reasons of liberty and peace of the world.

Then explain how x can be done for the cause of y and y can not be a reason for x.
Provide an example that actually makes sense in the use of the English language.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Bush's statement "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world.", whether true or not, is obviously a claim that we invaded Iraq, the battle, for the reason of liberty and peace of the world.

I have two responses:

(a) No, it isn't obviously a claim that we invaded for the reasons of liberty and peace of the world.

Then explain how x can be done for the cause of y and y can not be a reason for x.
Provide an example that actually makes sense in the use of the English language.

I did that with my bully example.

0 Replies

No you didn't. No reasonable person would buy your argument Tico that claiming a reason doesn't mean you claimed a reason.

0 Replies

Did Bush change the reasons for Invasion after the fact?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know