Bush takes on Iraqi war critics

MrJoeSoap

Bush takes on Iraqi war critics

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4528982.stm

President Bush speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington

Mr Bush is under increasing pressure on the Iraq issue
US President George W Bush has accepted responsibility for going to war in Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence, but said it was still the right choice.

On the eve of Iraq's parliamentary election, he made a robust defence of the war that toppled Saddam Hussein.

He said: "Saddam was a threat, and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

It is the last of four keynote speeches on Iraq from a president under increasing pressure on the issue.

Polls suggest most Americans are unhappy with Mr Bush's handling of the war, and some lawmakers are questioning how long the troops should stay.

"Many intelligence agencies judged that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and it's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," said Mr Bush in the speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

But he added that Saddam Hussein was nonetheless a threat, and had been looking for the opportunity to restart his weapons programmes.

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that," Mr Bush said.

'Pure politics'

The president insisted that US troops would stay in Iraq until the country's forces were sufficiently well trained to fully take over security duties.

A stable Iraq was in the interests of both the Iraqi and American people, he said.

And he accused critics in Washington, many of whom had originally supported the decision to invade, of playing "pure politics".

He said: "Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.

"These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq."

He concluded by saying that Iraq was becoming "a strong democracy" that would "inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran".

Mr Bush's address follows earlier speeches on the Iraqi poll and the military and economic situation in the country.

Letter

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released on Wednesday suggests 59% of Americans disapprove of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

Ahead of the speech, in the Senate, 40 Democrats and one independent signed a letter to the president in which they urge him to be more frank with the Iraqi and American public.

The administration, the letter says, should "tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq within the schedule they set for themselves".

It adds that Mr Bush must set out "a plan that identifies the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them".

So the boundaries have shifted. Mr. Bush has admitted the intelligence received regarding WMD's was incorrect, but still maintains that Saddam was a threat to the United States. No specific details on how, of course, but he was a threat nonetheless...

For all they are worth, the latest Gallup poll shows a 59% disapproval of the presidents handling of the war in Iraq. Still a ridiculously low figure if you ask me, but hey, I have my own opinions of the guy and quite clearly not everyone agrees.

Do people actually buy this? He has essentially admitted that he lied to the American public about the existence of Iraqi WMD's, though of course he has passed the blame onto the faulty intelligence. Shouldn't the buck stop with the president? Shouldn't he be responsible for his own actions?

Captain Trips

Well they bought it last time, so why not this time.

Heck, when Iran switches to the Euro for selling oil in March 20th '06, they'll buy the inevitable spin for war on Iran too. Much like Iraq switching to Euro for oil sales in 2001.

Manic Moran

Do people actually buy this? He has essentially admitted that he lied to the American public about the existence of Iraqi WMD's, though of course he has passed the blame onto the faulty intelligence. Shouldn't the buck stop with the president? Shouldn't he be responsible for his own actions?

I've always looked at the whole invasion deal with a healthy cynicism, combined, of course, with the arrogant (and true ;-) ) belief that I am far more intelligent than the average American and am able to read between some lines. Overall, I have a nice simple philosophy: Saddam's being kicked out of power was a good thing. America may not be altruistic enough to go deal with North Korea next, but at least the Koreans tend to leave well enough alone externally, so no great harm done there so far. I am far more disappointed with the partisan politics going around right now than I am with the way things are going in Iraq.

I'm with this bloke in the Washington Post. I guess I'm one of the two-thirds of junior level officers who has spent time on the ground and thinks it can still work out for the best.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301502.html

NTM

TomF

I still say that if Bush spoke with a John F. Kennedy accent, his speeches would be hailed throughout the free world.

Manic Moran

TomF wrote:

I still say that if Bush spoke with a John F. Kennedy accent, his speeches would be hailed throughout the free world.

Can you imagine the fun they'd have if Bush said the 'Ich bin ein Berliner' line?

NTM

billy the squid

TomF wrote:

I still say that if Bush spoke with a John F. Kennedy accent, his speeches would be hailed throughout the free world.

bull**** is bull**** no matter what accent you have.

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

America may not be altruistic enough to go deal with North Korea next, but at least the Koreans tend to leave well enough alone externally, so no great harm done there so far.

Since Iraq got kicked out of Kuwiat, they have not attacked anyone externally either, and seing as they couldn't even wrestle control of a third of their own country of the Kurds I doubt they would in the near future.

Korean missles have a much further reach than anything that Iraq had produced. This is the problem, attack North Korea and they could bomb the crap out of South Korea and even throw a few missles into Japan, Iraq though was unable to hurt any of our allies in any 'great' way - so it was ripe for the pickings.

Hobbes

NK have had test missiles land on the west coast (sea) off of the US. That was some years ago. Even failing that they could easily use jetstream bombing (Japanse played with this in WWII) which is low tech and would be pretty hard to stop.

But US isn't going into NK without SK/Japan/China permission, apart from that there is fuk all in the country that the US could exploit to justify the resources.

Jimboo_Jones

I seem to remember NK saying that their latest gen of missles would be able to reach the coast of the US - but I seem to have missed them actually testing it. I know that they have fired one over japan though.

bonkey

MrJoeSoap wrote:

He has essentially admitted that he lied to the American public about the existence of Iraqi WMD's

No, he hasn't.

He has said he was wrong in what he believed because he believed incorrect intelligence.

He has neither said he knew at the time that what he was saying was wrong nor that he knew the intelligence it was based on was wrong.

Lying, as has all-too-often been pointed out on this forum, requires that someone knowingly mislead. Bush has neither admitted nor "essentially admitted" (whatever you want to construed that as) that he lied.

As per usual, though, its the free ride the press give him that is most disappointing. So Saddam was a threat....what about Kim? He was/is on the AoE, has a known weapons program, isn't cooperating with the IAEA, has shown frequent animosity to the US.

IIRC, the AoE was originally defined as states who sponsored terrorism, so that base is covered too.

So why the flock has no-one had the gumption to ask Bush why Saddam posed the greatest, most immediate threat. Even allowing for the faulty intelligence....Saddam should never have been no.1. And no-one has asked the President publically why.

Patsies.

Me...I'd just love to see Jon Stewart get a 15-minute one-on-one unscripted interview with POTUS. Now that would be television.

jc

edanto

TomF wrote:

I still say that if Bush spoke with a John F. Kennedy accent, his speeches would be hailed throughout the free world.

Maybe. I'd be more sure that if he spoke with the same tone as JFK, he'd be more popular. Contrast these two quotes, the first from JFK

"Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind"

and this from GWB

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."

What on earth is he talking about?

His motivations for going to war were wrong, he has admitted as much. As bonkey points out, no-one in the Washington press corps will ask or get an answer to the question of "why the urgency?" and now Bush is trying to answer his critics with this smokescreen of truisms, assumptions and impossible objectives.

A really big question that should be asked is about the Iraqi oil. Is the stated US goal of securing this for the Iraqi people compatible with the Production Sharing Agreements, as currently proposed?

Are the hard working soldiers like Manic Moran out fighting for Iraqi freedom, like it says on the box, or for US oil companies, like people have been saying from the start?

A detailed analysis of the PSAs can be found at http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/PSAs_privatisation.pdf

They conclude that PSAs can, in theory allow for an equitable distribution of resources but that in practice, this never happens. Iraq could be locked into these agreements for years, but there is no debate about them.

Quote from the above "When Ayad Allawi issued his guidelines for Iraq’s oil policy in 2004, he insisted that there should not be public debate on these issues, as that would delay progress. We disagree – without public debate, the outcome cannot be considered progress."

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

NK have had test missiles land on the west coast (sea) off of the US. That was some years ago. Even failing that they could easily use jetstream bombing (Japanse played with this in WWII) which is low tech and would be pretty hard to stop.

I may not always be right on the political side of things, but military hardware, I know about...

The No-Dong missile was the last one test-fired by North Korea, this was in 1998. It flew over Japan, much to their irritation, and landed in the Pacific to the NE. Estimated range is on the order of 1,000 miles.

Unconfirmed reports (Mainly because they've never launched the thing) indicate that the Taepo-Dong series missiles (One and Two) are capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii and Western US. These are actually less of a worry to the US military than unconventionally delivered weapons as the US Navy and USAF are both going to deploy anti-ballistic missile defenses in the near future. This has been a long-running and troublesome (And expensive) development programme, with well-publicised failures, and less-well publicised successes. Technically, the Navy version of the missile could be fitted to Japan's Kongo-class Aegis warships.

I think the three practical differences between NK and Iraq are (1) NK doesn't have much of an effect on the global oil market. (2) He is not really in a position to affect the volatile political area known as the Middle East. (3) He has a much bigger military in much better terrain, and attacking him would end up in pretty major loss of life. Oh, and (4) (Little four, as it's unconfirmed), he's supposed to already have a nuke or two

Practical issues, I guess.

NTM

TomF

"Contrast these two quotes, the first from JFK
Quote:
'Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind'"

and this from GWB
Quote:
'I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.'

Well, from the contrast in flow of the two sentences, I'd say that GWB wrote his own sentence. JFK wrote very little of his speeches, they were written for him by Theodore Sorensen, a Nebraska boy. I think JFK was too busy with his harem to attend to much in the line of speechifying.

MrJoeSoap

TomF wrote:

"Contrast these two quotes, the first from JFK
Quote:
'Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind'"

and this from GWB
Quote:
'I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.'

Well, from the contrast in flow of the two sentences, I'd say that GWB wrote his own sentence. JFK wrote very little of his speeches, they were written for him by Theodore Sorensen, a Nebraska boy. I think JFK was too busy with his harem to attend to much in the line of speechifying.

Do you honestly think Bush writes his own speeches, or just this particular example?

edanto

TomF wrote:

JFK wrote very little of his speeches, they were written for him by Theodore Sorensen, a Nebraska boy. I think JFK was too busy with his harem to attend to much in the line of speechifying.

Interesting, but I don't really care. If you're looking for cheap laughs, I'd recommend http://www.xroadsfilms.com/batescomedycentral/
The same subject is dealt with in a more serious manner at http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm

What do you think of the comments on the thread about Bush's latest Iraq speech?

lili

bush lied again when he said that intelligency of other countries made the same statement than british and american intelligencies, i don't remember that french and german ones avoided this statement.

Hobbes

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Do you honestly think Bush writes his own speeches, or just this particular example?

Heres whats happen when they let him speak without being scripted.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=36334