THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

Actually, the speech was a pretty good warm-and-fuzzy. Even though I am a Bush opponent, I am not immune to patriotic arguments and the idea of spreading freedom, especially in the Middle East. I'm not a knee-jerk pacifist either, and there are plenty of good reasons for establishing a strong US military presence in the Middle East. But if you recall, that's not the the reason he gave for starting the war in the first place. It was all about WMDs, remember? He didn't start talking about democracy in Iraq until much later.

Well, now that Bush is openly admitting the intel was wrong, the question becomes when did he learn it was wrong? What did the President know and when did he know it?

It's well documented that the neocons planned to invade Iraq years before Bush was even elected. Bush has flip-flopped so many times on his stated reasons for this war, it's evident he's making it up as he goes along.

All that's left now is to find the whistleblowers or the smoking gun confirming that Bush knew the intel was wrong and manipulated it to justify the war.

I'm also wondering why the intelligence community is silently allowing Bush to scapegoat them like this.

Nobody, not even Ted Kennedy, is saying we should accept defeat in Iraq. What they are saying is that Bush took us into war on false premises and now must pay the political price. The job in Iraq should be finished, but somebody else should finish it, not Bush.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I heard the quotes that NPR pulled and they were pretty much the same ones the other media outlets were going with.

As expected they let Bush get away with setting up some straw men and framing a bunch of false choices. E.g. the choice between “ignoring terrorists" or "fighting in Iraq".

Another good one was the choice between "creating a Democratic ally in the middle east to help fight against terror" and "pulling out". As if the Islamic Republic of Iraq is going to be some kind of western ally instead of a breading ground for Islamic radicals.

The NPR story dovetailed with the Cheney visit to Iraq and Cheney got to deliver this gem, "There will not be an artificial timetable dictated by politicians."

That was a good one, since the entire fiasco was built on an artificial timetable dictated by politicians.
 

anonymous said......."there are plenty of good reasons for establishing a strong US military presence in the Middle East. But if you recall, that's not the the reason he gave for starting the war in the first place. It was all about WMDs, remember? He didn't start talking about democracy in Iraq until much later."

It was NOT all about WMD's, anonymous. You've forgotten what the Bush Doctrine was all about. It was about a lot of things. It was about being proactive in dealing with countries which sponsored and/or harbored terrorists, and Iraq was a country which engaged in this. President Bush stated that we would not distinguish between the terrorists and the countries which supported them.

Here is a part of the President's address to the U.N., just to refresh your memory.....

"......To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities, which the council said threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights and that the regime's repression is all-pervasive.

Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape.

Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents; and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.

Last year, the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini and Armeni nationals remain unaccounted for; more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council through Resolution 687 demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq's regime agreed then broke this promise.

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.

In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Amir of Kuwait and a former American president. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11. And Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.

Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge."

The complete speech can be found here:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/
 

It was NOT all about WMD's, anonymous. You've forgotten what the Bush Doctrine was all about.


Let me get this straight - you're saying Bush sent American troops to Iraq to defend the honor of the UN?

WTF is the "Bush Doctrine?" I remember him coming into office saying "We are not the world's policeman...." "We aren't going to engage in nation-building..." Is that the "Bush Doctrine?" I remember quite a bit of mockery directed at Clinton's Kosovo initiative. Oh, I remember all the Republicans saying that Kosovo was going to be a quagmire.

Or is the Bush Doctrine to invade and overthrow dictators who aren't nice to their people, and establish democracies in their place... unless they have nuclear weapons, of course.

Bush's UN speech represents his last-ditch attempt to gain a fig leaf of legality from the UN, but the UN wasn't buying. He threw a lot of crap up on the wall in that speech, but none of it stuck.

Of COURSE it was about WMDs. He beat that into the public and into Congress. If he had gone to Congress and said "I want to send our boys to Iraq because Saddam is mean to his people, and so Iraqis can have democracy," Congress would have never authorized the war. So instead Bush used the only thing that would win the authorization - WMDs.

But Congress doesn't like to be deceived, and they don't like to have their powers usurped by a President - not even THEIR president - especialln not with elections coming. So now they are lashing back. So set back, get some popcorn, and enjoy a nice long investigation.