Skip to comments.Bush's Reasons For War (Vanity...need help from FREEPERS)
Posted on 08/21/2005 6:54:18 PM PDT by SideoutFred
One of the favorite lines by our leftist friends is that the reasons for war by Bush keep changing. Personally, I don't buy that at all.
I've been using the State of the Union Address prior to the war, the speech to the UN General Assembly as my guiding tools here. I find that there were about 8 or 9 reasons given, not just the WMD reason. I'm trying to dispute this garbage from the left but I'm looking for some better sources. Any help folks?
Reasons I have documented (most of which are true or on their way)
1) WMD (not found in mass quantities, but could still be there or moved or destroyed 2) Regime Change (Successful, Hussein is gone). Elected gov't put in place 3) Removal of Hussein (Successful) 4) Stabilize region (TBD, but in the long run I think so) 5) Part of the War on Terrorism (Iraq funded Hamas and others for suicide bombers) 6) Uphold UN Resolutions that called for "serious consequences"
Bush stated in his State of the Union speech that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are to be destroyed.
He couldn't have been more clear that night, but some people still don't get it.
That's it in a nutshell. If any of your Leftist friends care to dispute it, ask them to produce credible sources. And no, the "Daily KOS" and similar Leftist screeds are not credible.
It doesn't matter what you say, it will not change their mind. All the lefties care about is defeating Bush...too bad they are complete failures at that as well.
The President said that Saddam was an imminent threat, and that he needed to be removed before he could use his ability to produce and deliver WMD's to terrorists.
Cause the Middle East has been a festering boil for half a century. It's about damn time somebody had the balls to attempt real change there.
And it ain't a gonna happen over night, either.
Fred, it was a front, in the war on Terror. A very strategic and important front. It was a very difficult decision for the man to make. He knew it would ruin his reputation, but he also knew that in the long run it would save more American (and world wide) lives. I admire him for going to war.
What is the country on the left of Iran? What is the country on the right? Where are our troops? Where were our troops in the year 2000? Were we safe in 2000?
These terrorists would part your head from your body, right in your own home, if we were not there. Libya would still be involved in terror, if we were not there. Iran would send a nuclear missle on our cities, if we were not there. We NEED to be there.
Please be sure to tell your friend that Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 which called for regime change.
Kerry went on ABC and met with Cokie Roberts after the legislation was passed and advocated American boots on the ground (this was pre 9/11) and said our allies wouldn't be with us and Germany and France in particular would have a lot to answer for.
And give your friend this link with all the Democrats wailing about WMD in Iraq and Clinton himself said in one of his state of the union addresses that Iraq threatened the region and indeed the world, including the US.
Revenge: Saddam put a hit out on Pappa Bush in 1993.
Whay are you wasting your time? The Left will never listen - they are beyond redemption.
Some days, with all the news from back home, I wonder why I'm here in Ramadi defending them. And a lot fo tropos who are less politically connected say it loudly.
I am sure the smarties here on FR will help you but you should know the left is NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. You are on a fool's errand.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
The rest of his justification for removing Saddam is in the 2002 SOTU as well.
~ Because he took an oath to protect the safety of Americans.
~ Because anyone who's ever made a cake knows that:
Bad guy who hates America and has food for oil $ to fund bad things
Bad guy who hates America and was born into wealth so he has $ to fund bad things
future problems for America.
Now...let's see...add in a pinch of ...
~ Your Country has just lost over 3,000 people in a terrorist attack.
A) Do nothing
B) Try to look like you're serious about finding bad guys by dropping a bomb or so on a rogue factory, or
C) Go to the one bad guy who ignored 17 UN resolutions; and many foreign governments, your predecessor, and your own CIA is telling you this guy has WMDs, and since you already have his address, you kick booo-tey!
W picked "C"
I think he made the right decision.
Pretty elementary to me.
Bill Clinton signed an 'executive order' for the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq before he left office. President Bush was merely following his predecessor's order.