Bush says US are in Iraq because of 9/11

[Dublo 7]

Ok, as we know there have been memos released that say Bush wanted to invade iraq even before 9/11 happened. So why does he keep using 9/11 as an excuse?

 

 

Sat Jun 18, 1:15 PM ET

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) -

President George W. Bush defended the war in

Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Bush also resisted calls for him to set a timetable for the return of thousands of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying Iraqis must be able to defend their own country before US soldiers can be pulled out.

 

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

 

Bush began a public relations offensive to defend the war as his approval rating has dropped well below 50 percent with Americans expressing skepticism about the invasion.

 

The centerpiece of the campaign will be a speech on June 28, exactly one year after the US-led coalition officially handed over sovereignty to a hand-picked Iraqi provisional government.

 

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove

Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," said the president.

 

"These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror," he argued.

 

"Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

 

Bush, who was to welcome Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari for his first visit to the White House on Friday, ruled out any hard and fast timetable for withdrawing the 130,000 US soldiers currently deployed in Iraq and made it clear that it will not be anytime soon.

 

Terrorists "know there is no room for them in a free and democratic Middle East, so the terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat," he said.

 

"Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people."

 

A June 13 USA Today poll showed that almost six of 10 Americans, 59 percent, want a full or partial pullout of US troops from Iraq.

 

In a New York Times/CBS News poll among 1,111 adults, Bush's approval rating dropped to 42 percent while 59 percent disapproved of his handling of Iraq.

 

Lawmakers from both parties, opposition Democrats and Bush's own Republicans, have called for a time frame for withdrawing from Iraq. More than 1,700 US soldiers have been killed there since US and British troops invaded in March 2003.

 

But the Bush administration has insisted that Iraqi troops must be ready to defend their own country before US troops can return to the United States.

 

"I am confident that Iraqis will continue to defy the skeptics as they build a new Iraq that represents the diversity of their nation and assumes greater responsibility for their own security," Bush said. "And when they do, our troops can come home with the honor they have earned."

 

"This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight. We're fighting a ruthless enemy that relishes the killing of innocent men, women, and children," he said.

 

"By making their stand in Iraq, the terrorists have made Iraq a vital test for the future security of our country and the free world. We will settle for nothing less than victory."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqbushattacks

 

 

 

I can almost predict people are going to say "OMFG YOU ARENT AMERICAN! BLAH BLAH". Please save it. I am simply posting this so you know that he has just lied to you again.

 

 

[Mortukai]

 

A June 13 USA Today poll showed that almost six of 10 Americans, 59 percent, want a full or partial pullout of US troops from Iraq.

 

 

"Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people."

Oh, the irony!

 

 

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove

Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," said the president.

I can't agree with that... and in fact it sounds like the definition of "terrorist" has now expanded to include "anyone who attacks America, even if they are simply civilians forced to turn to violence to defend their country from an invading force". I guess if America decided to invade Australia, and Australians resisted with force, all Australians would then be terrorists.

[Magephil]

Well, to be fair, not all Iraqis are obviously fighting against the American Forces, and many known terrorists groups have seized iraq ever since the American Invasion created a kind of vacuum when they removed Saddam. Plus private citizens have come from all over the arab world to fight; businesspeople and bankers even.

 

So, it's sort of a strange comparison.

 

In closing, the Bush Administration f*cked up and now everyone will be facing the consequences long after he leaves office.

 

*sigh* At least you guys have them purdy tax cuts and trickle down economics!

 

edit: sorry for bad grammar

Edited June 19, 2005 by Magephil

[Leftcoast]

 

*sigh* At least you guys have them purdy tax cuts and trickle down economics!

 

Yup, we have em'. Too bad for us that jackass ideas like this don't work.

[Paulie Cicero]

Bush is so full of sh*t. Iraq wasn't even involved in 9/11, so to use 9/11 as an excuse is rediculous. Bush should put his concentrate on Bin Laden, but he won't because Bin Laden is his friend, so he's using Iraq as a diversion. Saddam had to be delt with at some point, but when Bush came in it was not the right time. It's good that Saddam is out of power, but Bin Laden is still running around free possibly. So far Bush has bombed a country having no current affairs with America, caused the deaths of many innocent people, and given foreign nations even more reasons to hate us.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Here we go again...

[uzer]

Same reason Pearl Harbor put us into WWII so we could go after Germany/Hitler (and Japan).

 

Now we were after Iraq/Hussein (and Al Queda)

[Leftcoast]

 

Same reason Pearl Harbor put us into WWII so we could go after Germany/Hitler (and Japan).

 

Now we were after Iraq/Hussein (and Al Queda)

 

 

We had much better reasons to get involved with WWII than we did to get involved with Iraq.

 

 

[Magephil]

Same reason Pearl Harbor put us into WWII so we could go after Germany/Hitler (and Japan).

 

Now we were after Iraq/Hussein (and Al Queda)

 

 

We had much better reasons to get involved with WWII than we did to get involved with Iraq.

Unless you bite into that stupid myth that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al qaeda.

[Saggy]

dub, we know Bush lied to us, and is lying to us. We don't really need you to go on an anti-Bush campaign to tell it to us; especially when most of it have known it long before all this anti-Bush sentiment began to run as rampant as it does today.

 

 

However, I do believe 9/11 and the Iraq war are interlinked. Through the principle of cause and effect, I think Bush used 9/11 to convince the American people we were not safe, and that Iraq was hiding WMD's that he planned to use on us. Of course, when we couldn't find evidence of this, he tried to lie about relations between Al Qadea and Saddam, and I see it all mostly as an effort to keep the impression of the war in the American people's minds as being in our best interest.

 

 

As much truth as I think this line of thinking holds, I think most people have began to figure out that the Iraq war is more about the spoils of war, and not protecting American civillians and soliders. Afterall, we've lost more American lives to combat in Iraq than we have in any terrorist attack since 9/11. Although I'm not completely sure about the figures, I'm quite sure that we're nearing the half-way mark of the casualities we had on 9/11 as a result of this war, aswell.

 

 

More and more people are beginning to see this, so I really don't think that this needs to be brought up at all. In my opinion, Bush/Cheney just wanted to ride this war out for a maximum of two terms, and collect on all the contracts that Haliburton has recieved. War is big business.

Edited June 26, 2005 by SagaciousKJB

[Leftcoast]

 

I'm quite sure that we're nearing the half-way mark of the casualities we had on 9/11 as a result of this war, aswell.

 

 

The numbers of dead that we are given don't include those that later die due to their wounds, just those that are dead at arival or soon after. When you watch the news they say "two more soldiers died due to a road side bomb and three others wounded, this takes the death toll from 1212 to 1214". They never tell you how many of the wounded die a day or so later.

[ISuck]

Ok, as we know there have been memos released that say Bush wanted to invade iraq even before 9/11 happened.

 

 

Really? I don't the left has a very good track record with memos. What with the TANG documents they forged and shoved down everyone's throats as real and with the Downing Street Memo which in any other case of journalism would be considered an absolute joke because of its background

[RearEndCollision]

I really really have to ask, what the hell are you on? I mean, come on now.

 

As to the point of the topic, I think Sag hit the nail on the head. We all know the Bush adminstration has lied to us, and that the war was more about what we(America) could get from it rather then for a good cause.

 

@Uzer - The only diffrence, is that we only declared war upon Japan, then Germany and Italy declared war on us, so we responded by declaring war on them. We had to take all three if we wanted to go after one, due to the Axis alliance between Germany, Italy, and Japan.

[Leftcoast]

 

Really? I don't the left has a very good track record with memos.

 

I have to say that your lack of skill with the english language backs up my feeling you don't know what you talking about. To my knowledge no one was able to discredit the Downing Street memos. Either way, just about everything Bush has used to justify his oil grab is a complete joke to all jounalists.

[ISuck]

Really? I don't the left has a very good track record with memos.

 

I have to say that your lack of skill with the english language backs up my feeling you don't know what you talking about. To my knowledge no one was able to discredit the Downing Street memos. Either way, just about everything Bush has used to justify his oil grab is a complete joke to all jounalists.

Sorry I forgot the word "think"....

 

Anyways, here's a great article on the DSM

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php

 

 

And what makes you think the war was for oil? By now, I really wish it was because premium is killing me.

[Leftcoast]

 

Anyways, here's a great article on the DSM

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php

 

 

It's good that you can actualy show something on the subject, but one article from a right slanted bloger site does little (for me at least) to prove something to be a fraud.

[MissileDefender]

Has anyone not realised the sheer amount of High explosives these insurgents seem to have?

 

And people ask whats the point in this war? Look at what these terrorists have! Theyve used a good few hundred tonnes of explosives, Is it not a good enough reason to go to war and Disarm the terrorists of these arms?

[Leftcoast]

 

Has anyone not realised the sheer amount of High explosives these insurgents seem to have?

 

And people ask whats the point in this war? Look at what these terrorists have! Theyve used a good few hundred tonnes of explosives, Is it not a good enough reason to go to war and Disarm the terrorists of these arms?

 

If we had not gone to war with Iraq then there would be no "terrorist" there with any explosives.

 

If we had done a better job of managing the war we started, the "terrorists" would have had a harder time picking up Iraq's explosive stockpiles.

 

I use "" around terrorist, because it's a little weird to invade someone's country then call the resistance terrorist instead of the enemy.

[ISuck]

Anyways, here's a great article on the DSM

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php

 

 

It's good that you can actualy show something on the subject, but one article from a right slanted bloger site does little (for me at least) to prove something to be a fraud.

So you're not going to debate the specifics of the article but dismiss it as unbelievable because its an "article from a right slanted blogger site". Two can play that game because all the DSM is to me is a fake document from a left wing journalist.

 

Read the article and read the facts and read how the DSM is impossible to verify.

 

 

[BenMillard]

 

As much truth as I think this line of thinking holds, I think most people have began to figure out that the Iraq war  is more about the spoils of war, and not protecting American civillians and soliders.  Afterall, we've lost more American lives to combat in Iraq than we have in any terrorist attack since 9/11.  Although I'm not completely sure about the figures, I'm quite sure that we're nearing the half-way mark of the casualities we had on 9/11 as a result of this war, aswell.

Lest we forget the 10,000+ Iraqi civilians who have been killed by mis-guided American attacks. Civilians who have been the victims of terrorism for decades, only to be killed by incompetent "liberators."

 

Iraq was not involved with 9/11, as confirmed by the exhaustive 9/11 Commission Report. Rather than using the support of the world after 9/11 to actually take on the Taliban, Bin Laden and global terrorism, the Bush administration has alienated the world, killed thousands of non-combatants and caused a nation to descend into lawlessness. As well as creating a hotbed for the very terrorists they are supposed to be fighting to commit daily attacks, creating the conditions for the bloodiest conflict the region has seen in many years, etc. Obviously this wasn't the adminstration's intentions; it has gone this way simply due to their incompetence.

 

It's a disaster. History will recognise it as such, even if the administration doesn't.

Edited July 2, 2005 by Cerbera

[ISuck]

creating the conditions for the bloodiest conflict the region has seen in many years

That's a complete lie. But then again, the 300,000 dead from Hussein's reign, the genocide of Sudan, the thousands upon thousands upons thousands of dissenters killed in Afghanistan by a communist regime, can be ignored to further the anti-war movement.

 

I'm not conservative, and I'm not pro war, but I'm also not defeatist. Defeatism for political cause is no vice. The anti-war movement today is embarassing.

[BenMillard]

 

creating the conditions for the bloodiest conflict the region has seen in many years

That's a complete lie. But then again, the 300,000 dead from Hussein's reign, the genocide of Sudan, the thousands upon thousands upons thousands of dissenters killed in Afghanistan by a communist regime, can be ignored to further the anti-war movement.

 

I'm not conservative, and I'm not pro war, but I'm also not defeatist. Defeatism for political cause is no vice. The anti-war movement today is embarassing.

I hadn't realised that Sudan was part of the Middle-East, I thought Africa wasn't included as it was a different continent. Anyway, a lie (as Tony Blair will no doubt tell you) requires an intention to deceive. Mine was quite the opposite, I just made a mistake. Sorry.

 

Your statements about anti-war protest being defeatist seem less well-informed, though. Wars must be continued indefinitely because to stop the war would equal defeat? Would you say that Hitler should have continued WWII because ending it would be "defeatist" or are there special circumstances when ending a war is the right thing to do? I would suggest that wasting billions of ever-devaluing dollars and all those brave soldiers' lives into a war of one's own devising is the ultimate self-defeat.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by referencing an "anti-war movement" as if it is somehow strange and modern. To be pro-war would require supporting the slaughter of humans (including yourself), which is obviously something no civilised (or sane) human could ever be enthusiastic about. How can you be embarrassed about humans not wanting to kill other humans?

Edited July 2, 2005 by Cerbera

[ISuck]

creating the conditions for the bloodiest conflict the region has seen in many years

That's a complete lie. But then again, the 300,000 dead from Hussein's reign, the genocide of Sudan, the thousands upon thousands upons thousands of dissenters killed in Afghanistan by a communist regime, can be ignored to further the anti-war movement.

 

I'm not conservative, and I'm not pro war, but I'm also not defeatist. Defeatism for political cause is no vice. The anti-war movement today is embarassing.

I hadn't realised that Sudan was part of the Middle-East, I thought Africa wasn't included as it was a different continent. Anyway, a lie (as Tony Blair will no doubt tell you) requires an intention to deceive. Mine was quite the opposite, I just made a mistake. Sorry.

 

Your statements about anti-war protest being defeatist seem less well-informed, though. Wars must be continued indefinitely because to stop the war would equal defeat? Would you say that Hitler should have continued WWII because ending it would be "defeatist" or are there special circumstances when ending a war is the right thing to do? I would suggest that wasting billions of ever-devaluing dollars and all those brave soldiers' lives into a war of one's own devising is the ultimate self-defeat.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by referencing an "anti-war movement" as if it is somehow strange and modern. To be pro-war would require supporting the slaughter of humans (including yourself), which is obviously something no civilised (or sane) human could ever be enthusiastic about. How can you be embarrassed about humans not wanting to kill other humans?

 

1.)Sorry the defeatist attitude of the anti-war(who may have had validity in the early days of the war) movement started quickly after the initial invasion. The idea to pull out of Iraq is not a new idea

2.)Defeatism in this sense is the constant bickering of the New Left, the exploitation of deaths as a statistic to further your political agenda, all this can be avoided. If the modern anti-war movement had a more libertarian stance it would argue the idea of war as a government program, the effect war can have on an economy, etc. Ending a war is not defeatism, if you think the Rebel surrender at Appomattox was defeatist, you're mistaken

3.)Godwin's Law

 

 

[Magephil]

So what you're saying is, to stop war we shouldn't be thinking of those who are being killed, but rather the damaging effect it has on the economy?

 

Christ, to the "left-wing" ear that really sounds evil. War shouldn't be seen as a government program; that only serves to desensitize people to the real effects of war. War is killing people. Men, women, and children. It's completely counter-productive for soceity to see it as anything else.

 

Funny how you condemn the "left's exploitation of deaths as a statistic to further their cause", yet see no irony in bringing up the death toll of Sadam's regime.

 

However, while Sadam obviously murdered more people than the Coalition of the Willing, the invasion of Iraq was incredibly poorly planned; something people always seem to forget at this stage of events. Anyone with a sense of middle eastern politics could have told you that invading Iraq, in the manner that the Americans chose to, would create a vaccum of power and invite foreign terrorism, all the while inflaming anti-american sentiment.

 

I wont get into the fact that Sadam had been disarmed for years and the CIA knew this full well, but I wonder why the Americans were so eager to invade Iraq so quickly.

 

Liberation, I'm sure.

[ISuck]

 

So what you're saying is, to stop war we shouldn't be thinking of those who are being killed, but rather the damaging effect it has on the economy? 

 

Christ, to the "left-wing" ear that really sounds evil. War shouldn't be seen as a government program; that only serves to desensitize people to the real effects of war. War is killing people. Men, women, and children. It's completely counter-productive for soceity to see it as anything else.

 

 

I never said we should ignore the effects of war. I said that the use of deaths as a statistic is wrong. There's ways to show the effects of war without disrespecting the families and lives of those who died. In addition war should be seen as a government program and a danger to not only human life but to other aspects of life such as the economy.

 

 

Funny how you condemn the "left's exploitation of deaths as a statistic to further their cause", yet see no irony in bringing up the death toll of Sadam's regime. 

 

I only said that to set the record straight, he said something that was untrue, I corrected him, he corrected himself, he apologized. End of story. Exploiting deaths would be using that statistic as a reason to go to war.

 

 

However, while Sadam obviously murdered more people than the Coalition of the Willing, the invasion of Iraq was incredibly poorly planned; something people always seem to forget at this stage of events. Anyone with a sense of middle eastern politics could have told you that invading Iraq, in the manner that the Americans chose to, would create a vaccum of power and invite foreign terrorism, all the while inflaming anti-american sentiment.

 

It was poorly planned in that it happened in the first place.

 

 

I wont get into the fact that Sadam had been disarmed for years and the CIA knew this full well, but I wonder why the Americans were so eager to invade Iraq so quickly.

 

 

I'd say for the expansion of government

 

 

Liberation, I'm sure. 

Edit: read that wrong, feel like a dumbass

[BenMillard]

 

1. Sorry the defeatist attitude of the anti-war (who may have had validity in the early days of the war) movement started quickly after the initial invasion. The idea to pull out of Iraq is not a new idea

To be "anti-war" is to oppose all wars. Therefore stating people are anti-war simply because they oppose any specific war is a misrepresentation. They may well feel that some wars are justified, such as self-defence of one's own nation when violence has been initiated against one's nation by another. Note that this was not what happened with Iraq since the war was quite explicitly started before Iraq had carried out any attack against the US or even any of it's allies. It "pre-empted" any such attack (despite no such attack being possible by Iraq) which makes it a wholy aggressive act and not a defensive act.

 

All those in opposition to the Iraq war cannot be painted with the same brush.

 

 

2. Defeatism in this sense is the constant bickering of the New Left, the exploitation of deaths as a statistic to further your political agenda, all this can be avoided. If the modern anti-war movement had a more libertarian stance it would argue the idea of war as a government program, the effect war can have on an economy, etc. Ending a war is not defeatism, if you think the Rebel surrender at Appomattox was defeatist, you're mistaken.

I don't understand how the"bickering" of a political faction amounts to defeatism. Defeatism is to be contented with failure after making no effort to suceed. Opposing a war is no such thing; it is an expression of disagreement with a situation created by those at war. It is not a statement about wanting to lose battles or arguments, it is a statement about not wanting a war to be taking place and/or to have started. Edited July 4, 2005 by Cerbera

[Svip]

The case is quite clear, Bush is having serious trouble dealing with the people against the war, and to justifi it, he says that because of 9/11, the US is in Iraq.

 

Cause he knows ( or rather, his advisers know ), that no American would say revenging 9/11 is bad thing, and thus get some of thus Right Wing people, who were a bit uncertian to jump the bandwagon, and say; "The war in Iraq is good!"

 

Iraq is currently a home front for terrorists, in fact, it is known that more terrorists has appeared in Iraq since the war started, cause Iraq is kinda like a battle field, and the terrorists can therefore use it as a "test facility". Sounds wrong, but they are using it.

 

So what have Bush really done for the poor Iraqis who were brutally slaughter by the evil Saddam? Nothing really, it's a lot more dangerous to live in Iraq as it is now, and the terrorists will be there as long as there are American troops in the country, and Bush has said that the American troops will first withdraw when the job is done, aka, the terrorists are gone, and you can walk across any road in Baghdad, with getting hit by a car being the most likely thing to be killed by.

 

The war back in the early 90's was justified, because NATO was trying to save Kuwait from Iraq's invasion ( which only took two hours ), though the allied forces placed a lot of Nuclear Activity in the ground because of their new type of "weapons". And so they have in this war. Thus leaving Iraq with Nuclear Activity within the ground, and affecting the people living there. And the battlefields' echo will be heard for a thousand years, not because the battle was special, but because Nuclear Activity lasts thousands of years...

[MissileDefender]

Has anyone not realised the sheer amount of High explosives these insurgents seem to have?

 

And people ask whats the point in this war? Look at what these terrorists have! Theyve used a good few hundred tonnes of explosives, Is it not a good enough reason to go to war and Disarm the terrorists of these arms?

 

If we had not gone to war with Iraq then there would be no "terrorist" there with any explosives.

 

If we had done a better job of managing the war we started, the "terrorists" would have had a harder time picking up Iraq's explosive stockpiles.

 

I use "" around terrorist, because it's a little weird to invade someone's country then call the resistance terrorist instead of the enemy.

Clearly they can aqquire a large amount of explosives, So if you just pulled out, theyd have all this explosive stockpiles left over... What to do with it?

 

Car bombs

Suitcase bombs

Suicide bombs, You name it, theyll start popping up all over Europe.

[Leftcoast]

 

Clearly they can aqquire a large amount of explosives, So if you just pulled out, theyd have all this explosive stockpiles left over... What to do with it?

 

Car bombs

Suitcase bombs

Suicide bombs, You name it, theyll start popping up all over Europe.

 

Yah, this is most likely true, but it's not what I was talking about. I think you didn't understand my post.

 

[ISuck]

 

Cause he knows ( or rather, his advisers know ), that no American would say revenging 9/11 is bad thing, and thus get some of thus Right Wing people, who were a bit uncertian to jump the bandwagon, and say; "The war in Iraq is good!"

 

These are not right wingers, these are left wingers.