There just seems to not be a way with getting through a week without having to deal with the idiocy of this man. The last time I gave an assessment of one of Bush's speech on the Iraq war, I noted the glaring omissions from his 35-Page "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (PDF) document. Here's an excerpt from that post.
The document lists a host of challenges but does not mention any strategy for dealing with those challenges. Again, the lack of metrics. What the American people want is to know how far along in the process are we to a defined goal. Is success Iraq producing 10 billion barrels a day or 5 billion barrels? How much electricity is required to note that the electrical grid is up to par to support economic growth?
Bush did a speech on the intelligence that got us into the war. I've had to point out the doublespeak of this Administration before, but this one almost takes the cake. First he says:
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,"Then he goes on to say:
"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," Bush said. "It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place."Then he says:
"Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power,"Where to begin with this? He admits that we went to war with faulty intelligence. Americans should have a real problem with this. The decision to go to war is one that should be made with the most clear and accurate information and its necessity should be just as clear. There was no ambiguity on the part of the American people to take military action in Afghanistan. Why? Because it was clear that Al Queda was the organization behind the 9/11 attacks and Afghanistan were unwilling to hand Osama Bin Laden over the US authorities.
Iraq, after a decade of sanctions posed no threat to the United States. And the only reason we thought that he did is because the Bush Administration touted faulty intelligence. My girlfriend got upset with me because I didn't ask the follow up question to find what steps are required to prepare condensed soup. So, for the Bush Administration to fail to delve deeper into the intelligence and certify that it was good intelligence, is absolutely negligent.
Let's move on to the second quote. It is an absolute lie. The only reason Americans supported this war because Iraq was presented as an imminent threat to the United States. The question to this is simple: Would Americans support the preemptive invasion of a country for the sole purpose of removing a dictator and establishing a democracy? The answer to that is absolutely not.
The statement, "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein," is the default talking point for Conservatives to absolve themselves of anything that goes wrong in Iraq allowing them the freedom of mind to ignore everything else? However, note the difference in how Bush phrased it. "Saddam was a threat..." Gone are the days when Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld defined Saddam as a grave and gathering threat to the security of the United States. Those two statements are not equivalent.
But the reason that the talking point is so effective is because a lot of Conservatives are very insecure about this war. That is the reason they grasp on to anything that allows them to say, "Hey, things are going good. I told you so." In fact, a lot of Conservatives are insecure about their political standings and they have come to believe that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. It is why when challenged, they declare Liberals to be trolls, moonbats, say we hate America and declare that because of our opposition, we are aiding and abetting the enemy.
I believe the Bush Administration cherry picked the intelligence to support their agenda. Period. But his constant campaigning to gain support for the war is sickening. Let the results speak for themselves. Don't spend $300 million pushing propaganda to the Iraqi media. They are in the midst of what is happening. They live the good and bad and will judge for themselves.
Nuff Said.... Tomorrow, I'm going to bash my Liberal friends over the head for their BS.
1. Is establishing a democracy a justification for war?
2. The Bush doctrine is to strike them before they strike us. Do you support this doctrine?
3. If yes. Is Iran a grave enough threat to the US to justify war? North Korea?
4. Would you have supported invading Iraq without the WMD charge?