Bush in 2000: Misleading America
"It must be in the national interests, it must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. The exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has become somewhat fuzzy."
John Kerry's words? No, George W. Bush's words.
As we approach the second Presidential Debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, let's look back to how George W. Bush mislead America there four years ago – at the cost of over 1,000 American lives, billions of dollars, the security and respect of America.
 | Bush in 2000 [Quicktime, 8.6 MB] |
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 7:14 AM |
| 
10 Comments:
Er, something big happened three years ago. Changed a lot of things.
Perhaps you heard about it?
Er, Mitch, I know 9/11 "changed everything" but I didn't realize it changed the need for it to be in our vital interest to send troops (even the Bush Doctrine posits that); for the mission to be clear; and for the exit strategy to be well defined.
Iraq fails all of those tests. Colin Powell warned Bush beforehand that it did, but Bush didn't listen, and now we're losing options to fix the problem every single day.
Well said, Luke!
Nor, Mitch, did 9/11 change where Al Quaida was operating. Because he had no plan other than blind impulse, a personal vendetta and a Veep with an itch to control that oil, the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief, let that ball drop, launched a fiasco in Iraq and recruited more volunteers than Al Quaida could have on it's own in 10 years.
You feeling safer, Mitch? Ever wonder who's available to defend this country here now that there are nuclear (that's "nu-cle-ar", not "nuke-u-ler") weapons in North Korea and possibly in Iran with our troops already spread thin across the world from your home? The National Security Chipmunk makes you feel all warm and fuzzy every other month when he drops the color back from fuscia to mauve or whatever?
And while we're on the subject, where do you think Cheney's oil (or the oil you need to heat your home or drive your car, for that matter) is going to come from as newly radicalized Islamists raise insugencies in more and more oil-producing countries? Bu$hie's good pal Pootie, who's rethinking that democracy thing and (shade's of the Bu$h Administation!) dismantling it all on his little lonesome? Yeah, there's the Arctic Reserve. That will last us about 6 weeks -- provided we didn't need it for something marginal like, say, defense.
Wake up! Bush is too stupid to know he's heading the lemming's charge behind the Neo-Cons. Where do you want to be in that pack? Only a fool does more of what's not working. The world and America deserve better than Bu$h.
Is Iraq not better off? Or would you go as far to say that they would be better off with Saddam in power? Kerry wouldnt even say that. And would you say that we didnt give diplomacy a chance? Lets see how many UN resolutions did we have that Saddam didnt listen to. Kerry would have gave the UN more time. Please explain to me why? Would you not agree that Saddam was seeking weapons of mass destruction to use for evil purposes? And do you think that our country should have to pass a "Global test" before we are allowed to go to war. Kerry seems to care more about what the world thinks of america than what is in the best interest of our country. Bush may not be a good speaker. And Ill give you kerry definately gave a better speech in style. But what Bush said was honest and simple. Bottom line those of us who have made up our mind these debates arent going to change our minds. And I would like to know how Kerry plans on running the military with the attitude of WRONG WAR WRONG PLACE WRONG TIME. How is that going to work? That would be like a boss at my job telling me " I HATE WORKING HERE THIS IS THE WORST PLACE TO WORK. I DONT KNOW WHY I WORK HERE." And then turning around and saying "OK THIS IS HOW WERE GOING TO GET THE JOB DONE." Please you have to admit you would look at that person like you have got to be kidding me.
http://markedmanner.blogspot.com/
• "Is Iraq not better off? Or would you go as far to say that they would be better off with Saddam in power? "
We heard the other day about 32 Iraqui children killed. We don't hear about the other 20, 000 Iraquis killed by force of the sheer chaos they're living in. We've caused the chaos as surely as we've been the ones who killed many of them. Iraq is not better off no matter how many times the Administration says it.
I'm not going to put words in Kerry's or anyone else's mouth. But I'll stand up and say "Yes! The world was better off when Sadaam was in control". Because there was a stability within which a negotiated end was possible, Al Quaeda which was already discredited and significantly weakened, was the focus of the War on Terrorism and we had a world alliance that could have pursued bin Laden until he was no longer a threat.
Bush had been humiliating and pontificating & dictating to alliance leaders from the day he was selected. The world was waiting for America to come to its senses and reject his isolationism and pandering to fear. Kerry, or almost anyone for that matter, could have coalesced an effective boycott of Iraq as an alternative to war. You don't get that Bu$h lost every bit of his leverage to negotiate when the first troops entered Iraq?
• "Kerry would have gave the UN more time. Please explain to me why?"
Possibly because the UN sanctions had eliminated the WMD. The UN weapons inspection teams were saying that over and over. You missed that? I know, I know, Bu$h was listening to his paid informant, Chilabi. Did you notice how that paid off? It would seem to me from misplacing his confidence, to not taking control of intelligence agencies out of control, to having a National Security Adviser who can't interpret "terrorists will use planes to strike in the US" to mean terrorists would use planes to strike in the US, the man is INCOMPETENT!
• "And do you think that our country should have to pass a 'Global test' "
I think we live in the world and what's good for the world is good for the US. The rapacious colonial policies we've pursued is WHY people were desperate enough to be recruited by Al Quaeda to fly to their deaths in planes.
• And Ill give you kerry definately gave a better speech in style. But what Bush said was honest and simple."
Aha! Something we can agree on! Bu$h is simple. Can you really have watched that debate -- one of the precious few opportunities any of us have had to see him not repeat rote lines before a receptive audience -- and think you want this simple, unprepared, resourceless man to shape your future????
• "And I would like to know how Kerry plans on running the military with the attitude of WRONG WAR WRONG PLACE WRONG TIME."
Someone will have to! Bu$h has created this sh*tstorm and there's no way out but to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. And the "resolute" person who doesn't HAVE anything left in his bag of tricks but more of the same can not do it. Every time I hear him say he's "resolute" I think of another George named George Custer. How did "resolute" work for him?
Bu$h is stuck in quicksand. But we're not. We can DUMP him! It's insanity not to!
Just ducking in with a link:
George Soros blog
"Er, Mitch, I know 9/11 "changed everything""
...er, scare quotes?
" but I didn't realize it changed the need for it to be in our vital interest to send troops (even the Bush Doctrine posits that); for the mission to be clear; and for the exit strategy to be well defined."
First, the mission was clear. If the Bush administration made a mistake, it was tying the whole thing to WMDs; they were just one of four crystal-clear reasons to oust Hussein (UN resolutions, human rights abuses and links to terror being the other three), any one of which were sufficient grounds.
"Iraq fails all of those tests."
It passed the mission test just fine, PR aside. As to "exit strategies" - well, that's nice-sounding political rhetoric, but war is *never* that easy or clear, especially a war against a nebulous entity that has no borders, leader or place of its own. The "exit strategy" is to end the terrorist threat to the free world. Vague? Yeah, but understandable.
" Colin Powell warned Bush beforehand that it did, but Bush didn't listen, and now we're losing options to fix the problem every single day."
First: Citing Powell? The good ol' "Find someone in the administration I agree with and use him as the ultimate authority" trick! And Powell's messages were a bit more, er, nuanced (Jeez, I hate Kerry for destroying that word) than that. I'd hope you'd know it.
Second: Losing options? We really only had one all along. All of Kerry's "options" are embroidery; the simple fact is, we'd have either hunt down terrorists and win the war (whether we invaded Iraq, and even if we'd elected Algore or not!), or be willing to accept the free world being bombed, and eventually gassed and slimed and nuked, with impunity.
"First, the mission was clear. If the Bush administration made a mistake, it was tying the whole thing to WMDs; they were just one of four crystal-clear reasons to oust Hussein (UN resolutions, human rights abuses and links to terror being the other three), any one of which were sufficient grounds."
The problem we run into, however, is that the Bush administration not only pushed WMDs heavily, they also pushed the ties to Al-Quaida, and thus far, we don't have any solid data to back that up. The American people are going to be a lot more likely to support a war when we've been led to think that we're in someone's crosshairs. Human rights abuses and UN resolutions aren't huge concerns for the average citizen. - take away the notion that "they could/want to attack us" and "these guys were behind 9/11 (or at least best buddies...)" and you're going to find a lot less support for sending our troops into harm's way. And it's not as if the US makes it a practice to remove dictators and human rights violators... some of them have even gotten our support.
"And it's not as if the US makes it a practice to remove dictators and human rights violators... some of them have even gotten our support."
Would that include, perhaps, Saddam Hussein? =o Let's check with Daddy Bush and see if that could have happened. ;>
Mitch,
Saddam's supposed WMD and links to Al Qaeda consisted were the main aspects of the administration's case for war. Both have been discredited. The humanitarian reasons were just window dressing. If Bush had made the case based on humanitarian reasons and UN resolutions, we never would've gone. Just look at Dafur.
I find it amusing that you say the mission of defeating terrorists is nebulous and ill-defined. Indeed, it is. That is one of the reasons the Bush administration latched on so tightly to defeating supposed state sponsors of terrorism. Their inability to focus on actual terrorists in Afghanistan (with, as Rumsfeld put it, "no good targets") got us into the Iraq mess.
Why can't you grasp that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists? Oh, he paid off some suicide bombers. Is that important enough to sacrifice 12,000 Iraqi civilians and 1,000 US troops? I don't think so. Iraq wasn't a threat to us.
Al Qaeda is a threat, and Bush isn't doing everything possible to defeat them. Kerry will.
Post a Comment
<< Home