From his most recent press conference. The questioner is Helen Thomas, White House press corps member since Kennedy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 321-4.html
Helen. After that brilliant performance at the Grid Iron, I am -- (laughter.)
Q You're going to be sorry. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, let me take it back. (Laughter.)
Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --
Q Everything --
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.
Q -- everything I've heard --
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --
Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --
Q I'm talking about Iraq --
THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --
Q -- go to war --
THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
President on Iraq - His words
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
President on Iraq - His words
Well you have to give it to the guy. There have been no more planes full of innocent people including CHILDREN, that have plowed into any buildings in America. And there have been no more suicide bombers plowing into our ships. Remember the Cole?
And you do have Osama Bin Laden wanting to call it quits.
So we havent been all that wrong. Now have we?
And you do have Osama Bin Laden wanting to call it quits.
So we havent been all that wrong. Now have we?
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
President on Iraq - His words
Ok, Accountable. I read most of that. It was really painful.
He keeps going on about his strategy for victory, but to be honest, other then not bringing our troops home he really doesn't seem to have one.
Yes, insurgents were driven out of Tal Afar. But while large caches of weapons, uniforms and bomb making materials were taken, I don't remember seeing anything about a lot of insurgents being captured. I don't know, maybe I missed that news article.
I really like this part:
I believe America prospers when people are allowed to keep more of what they earn so they can make their own decisions about how to spend, save and invest. So I'm going to continue to work with Congress to make the tax relief permanent, continue to work with Congress to restrain federal spending, continue to work with Congress to achieve the goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.
Congress just did whatever it was that it needed to do to raise the ceiling on the National Debt. How in the world does he think that we are going to cut the deficit in half in 3 years? While Corporate America makes record billions in profits and gets tax breaks, where does he think the money will come from to pay down the deficit? Is he gonna sell those trailers sitting in New Orleans? He can't!
I have never voted for anyone named Bush and I never will. Not even for dogcatcher.
He keeps going on about his strategy for victory, but to be honest, other then not bringing our troops home he really doesn't seem to have one.
Yes, insurgents were driven out of Tal Afar. But while large caches of weapons, uniforms and bomb making materials were taken, I don't remember seeing anything about a lot of insurgents being captured. I don't know, maybe I missed that news article.
I really like this part:
I believe America prospers when people are allowed to keep more of what they earn so they can make their own decisions about how to spend, save and invest. So I'm going to continue to work with Congress to make the tax relief permanent, continue to work with Congress to restrain federal spending, continue to work with Congress to achieve the goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.
Congress just did whatever it was that it needed to do to raise the ceiling on the National Debt. How in the world does he think that we are going to cut the deficit in half in 3 years? While Corporate America makes record billions in profits and gets tax breaks, where does he think the money will come from to pay down the deficit? Is he gonna sell those trailers sitting in New Orleans? He can't!
I have never voted for anyone named Bush and I never will. Not even for dogcatcher.
Sandi
President on Iraq - His words
Raven wrote: Well you have to give it to the guy. There have been no more planes full of innocent people including CHILDREN, that have plowed into any buildings in America. And there have been no more suicide bombers plowing into our ships. Remember the Cole?
And you do have Osama Bin Laden wanting to call it quits.
So we havent been all that wrong. Now have we?
Who says Osama wants to call it quits?? That's news to me! Why doesn't he just surrender then? Instead of fighting a "war" in a country not really related to the terrorist attacks, why aren't we going after the master-mind? We found Hussein in a 6' hole for pete's sake! Why can't we find this guy??
And you do have Osama Bin Laden wanting to call it quits.
So we havent been all that wrong. Now have we?
Who says Osama wants to call it quits?? That's news to me! Why doesn't he just surrender then? Instead of fighting a "war" in a country not really related to the terrorist attacks, why aren't we going after the master-mind? We found Hussein in a 6' hole for pete's sake! Why can't we find this guy??
President on Iraq - His words
observer1 wrote: Who says Osama wants to call it quits?? That's news to me! Why doesn't he just surrender then? Instead of fighting a "war" in a country not really related to the terrorist attacks, why aren't we going after the master-mind? We found Hussein in a 6' hole for pete's sake! Why can't we find this guy??
Yeah he was trying to call a truce with the U.S. A few months back. I wish I knew why we cant find him. Probably right under our nose. What I figure, is that we intend on clearing out the entire middle east until we DO find him. Then watch how quick we clear from the area.
Yeah he was trying to call a truce with the U.S. A few months back. I wish I knew why we cant find him. Probably right under our nose. What I figure, is that we intend on clearing out the entire middle east until we DO find him. Then watch how quick we clear from the area.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
DesignerGal
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:20 am
President on Iraq - His words
Raven wrote: Yeah he was trying to call a truce with the U.S. A few months back. I wish I knew why we cant find him. Probably right under our nose. What I figure, is that we intend on clearing out the entire middle east until we DO find him. Then watch how quick we clear from the area.
Its like Hillary joked, "We cant find the tallest man in the Middle East? Are you kidding me?" She directed that at Bushie, by the way...
Its like Hillary joked, "We cant find the tallest man in the Middle East? Are you kidding me?" She directed that at Bushie, by the way...
HBIC
President on Iraq - His words
DesignerGal wrote: Its like Hillary joked, "We cant find the tallest man in the Middle East? Are you kidding me?" She directed that at Bushie, by the way...
How very true!! I thought we'd "capture" him right before the last election, to bolster Bushie's chances. They probably will "capture" him just before Bush FINALLY leaves office. Same thing happened with Reagan & the prisoners. Always some big to-do to come in or go out with some semblance of dignity. :yh_frustr
How very true!! I thought we'd "capture" him right before the last election, to bolster Bushie's chances. They probably will "capture" him just before Bush FINALLY leaves office. Same thing happened with Reagan & the prisoners. Always some big to-do to come in or go out with some semblance of dignity. :yh_frustr
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
President on Iraq - His words
Trimmed of the non-Iraq talk, President Bush said, "My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. ...
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --
-- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it."
He did not send troops in response to the 9/11 attacks, but he did send troops because of them. It was a preemptive, not defensive action.
Don't get me wrong. Now that we are in Iraq, we need to finish the job.
To leave before Iraq's governing body is viable would be wrong.
What worries me is apologists such as Bill Bennett calling the action noble. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013469.php
Take such a sentiment to the micro level, it would be like calling vigilantes who break into homes to remove abusive husbands noble and laudible. It's not.
I fear that President Bush actually believes he can spread democracy by force. How oxymoronic is that? I fear that he is getting ready to try it again. If he does, he must be stopped.
And yes, this is a fairly major change in my attitude.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --
-- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it."
He did not send troops in response to the 9/11 attacks, but he did send troops because of them. It was a preemptive, not defensive action.
Don't get me wrong. Now that we are in Iraq, we need to finish the job.
To leave before Iraq's governing body is viable would be wrong.
What worries me is apologists such as Bill Bennett calling the action noble. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013469.php
Take such a sentiment to the micro level, it would be like calling vigilantes who break into homes to remove abusive husbands noble and laudible. It's not.
I fear that President Bush actually believes he can spread democracy by force. How oxymoronic is that? I fear that he is getting ready to try it again. If he does, he must be stopped.
And yes, this is a fairly major change in my attitude.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
President on Iraq - His words
Far Rider wrote: Syria is next. Beware.
I bet your all very glad I'm not the President of the United States.
Gotta agree on both points, brudda.
But by using pre-emptive attacks, the only difference between us and any other empire is whitewash.
I bet your all very glad I'm not the President of the United States.
Gotta agree on both points, brudda.
But by using pre-emptive attacks, the only difference between us and any other empire is whitewash.
-
SweetDarlin
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:53 am
President on Iraq - His words
Far Rider wrote: I'm sure I'm the only one left on this forum that thinks we did the right thing removing saddam and attacking alqeada in Iraq. * raises hand slowly, peeking out from behind the crowd....
ummm, I am pretty much still in that camp with you Far...
I have some serious problems with out current President, but all in all I still support that decision.
ummm, I am pretty much still in that camp with you Far...
I have some serious problems with out current President, but all in all I still support that decision.
[FONT=Georgia]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
President on Iraq - His words
Raven wrote: Well you have to give it to the guy. There have been no more planes full of innocent people including CHILDREN, that have plowed into any buildings in America. And there have been no more suicide bombers plowing into our ships. Remember the Cole?
And you do have Osama Bin Laden wanting to call it quits.
So we havent been all that wrong. Now have we?
You've got a point there, Raven. I agree with you. Of course, while I'm agreeing with you, three CIA and NSA agents are reading this thread secretly, so what price did we pay for this safety?
But anyway, today he called himself the "Educator-in-Chief." That kind of made me mad, has any President ever uttered as egomaniacal statement as that? Meglomania, thy name is Bush.:-2
And you do have Osama Bin Laden wanting to call it quits.
So we havent been all that wrong. Now have we?
You've got a point there, Raven. I agree with you. Of course, while I'm agreeing with you, three CIA and NSA agents are reading this thread secretly, so what price did we pay for this safety?
But anyway, today he called himself the "Educator-in-Chief." That kind of made me mad, has any President ever uttered as egomaniacal statement as that? Meglomania, thy name is Bush.:-2
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
President on Iraq - His words
Far Rider wrote: Acc, I'm glad you hold your view, mines different.
I'm sure I'm the only one left on this forum that thinks we did the right thing removing saddam and attacking alqeada in Iraq. And I still believe its a noble thing to have done so.
We live in perilous times, a time in which a great enemy has begun to attack in a way in which we have not understood their capable of. Some of us military guys around the world have seen this coming, building for more than 20 years, and in the past 10 years weve warned that an attack is on the horizon, and it fell on the deaf ears of the Clinton administration that peicemealed the military out on humanitarian missions while hidden behind the scenes he allowed only intel gathering.... Bush was no better in my opinion, for when he took office the intel community laid it out on the line to him... and we still got our asses kicked on 9/11.
I'm sick of being the good guys. Prempt all you want as far as I'm concerned. Attack, dismantle, destroy... I'll even volunteer to go back and help, and I'm willing to send my sons.
Fairness, is bullshit. I will gladly break international law to protect and defend my country. Is it right? Maybe not but I'd do it anyway.
I don't know why we hesitate sometimes. If I brought it down to a family level and someone was going to attack me, and I had knowledge of it and no way to thwart it. I'd attack first... it is that simple to me.
Alqeada was training in Iraq. That is reason enough for me. I can sleep with that.
Syria is next. Beware.
I bet your all very glad I'm not the President of the United States.
Personally, I think we should have taken care of Suddam the FIRST time we were in Iraq. Think of all the time we would have saved if we had skipped all of the sanction bullshit. We had an honest reason to go in instead of making one up.
Everything I have read points to Syria as having training camps for Al Qaeda, not Iraq yet we went into Iraq first. Because the Syrians are friends of the Bush family. I'm betting that if we take military action in another country - it will be Iran. And the excuse will be nuclear weapons.
I'm sure I'm the only one left on this forum that thinks we did the right thing removing saddam and attacking alqeada in Iraq. And I still believe its a noble thing to have done so.
We live in perilous times, a time in which a great enemy has begun to attack in a way in which we have not understood their capable of. Some of us military guys around the world have seen this coming, building for more than 20 years, and in the past 10 years weve warned that an attack is on the horizon, and it fell on the deaf ears of the Clinton administration that peicemealed the military out on humanitarian missions while hidden behind the scenes he allowed only intel gathering.... Bush was no better in my opinion, for when he took office the intel community laid it out on the line to him... and we still got our asses kicked on 9/11.
I'm sick of being the good guys. Prempt all you want as far as I'm concerned. Attack, dismantle, destroy... I'll even volunteer to go back and help, and I'm willing to send my sons.
Fairness, is bullshit. I will gladly break international law to protect and defend my country. Is it right? Maybe not but I'd do it anyway.
I don't know why we hesitate sometimes. If I brought it down to a family level and someone was going to attack me, and I had knowledge of it and no way to thwart it. I'd attack first... it is that simple to me.
Alqeada was training in Iraq. That is reason enough for me. I can sleep with that.
Syria is next. Beware.
I bet your all very glad I'm not the President of the United States.
Personally, I think we should have taken care of Suddam the FIRST time we were in Iraq. Think of all the time we would have saved if we had skipped all of the sanction bullshit. We had an honest reason to go in instead of making one up.
Everything I have read points to Syria as having training camps for Al Qaeda, not Iraq yet we went into Iraq first. Because the Syrians are friends of the Bush family. I'm betting that if we take military action in another country - it will be Iran. And the excuse will be nuclear weapons.
Sandi
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
President on Iraq - His words
Jives wrote: You've got a point there, Raven. I agree with you. Of course, while I'm agreeing with you, three CIA and NSA agents are reading this thread secretly, so what price did we pay for this safety?
But anyway, today he called himself the "Educator-in-Chief." That kind of made me mad, has any President ever uttered as egomaniacal statement as that? Meglomania, thy name is Bush.:-2
Are you serious? Somedays he can barely speak in complete sentences!
But anyway, today he called himself the "Educator-in-Chief." That kind of made me mad, has any President ever uttered as egomaniacal statement as that? Meglomania, thy name is Bush.:-2
Are you serious? Somedays he can barely speak in complete sentences!
Sandi
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
President on Iraq - His words
Far Rider wrote: Hey Bud youre the coolest dude I ever had to disagree with, hows that?
Because we're family, baby! What's family without dispute? :-6
Far Rider wrote: I take exeption to the term "Empire"... When we are done we will leave. (I realize that may be a long time)
No, we won't leave. I've been stationed or visited in foreign lands on military bases that have been operational since WWII. So have you. Japan, Philipines, Korea, England, and Germany for me. Even more for you, I'm sure. Don't we still have troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? We don't leave. The only difference between us and old-school empires is the difference between a corporation and a franchise. Sure, the government is in their name, but it's in our image.
Far Rider wrote: I used to think that a country could operate above board, then I stepped into the US Army and realized that we're a lot better off if the common american is blind dumb and stupid to covert military action. Having said that I dont want to mislead anyone to believe we operate illegally on a regular and purposeful basis, because in my experience thats not the case. But I do realize there have been times when illegal actions took place. Im refering to agreeing with legal but secret activities for national securities sake.
So it's okay to behave without integrity, as long as it's covert? (I'd typed a low blow but deleted it.) Sorry, integrity means strength and consistency throughout, not just on the surface. If it's a choice between being strong or geing good, I choose good every time.
A country can act above board. It's harder. It's less expedient. It's more expensive. But it's possible - and it's preferable, for me.
Far Rider wrote: President Bush, is not a bafoon as some would suggest. Our military is incredible, this war has been almost flawlessly planned, its been brilliantly run. And will go down in history as "text book"... It has been successful on all fronts as far as wars are judged.
The reason this war is veiwed as being handled wrong is because of the media slant in polling... George W, coudlnt win this war no matter what he did in the eyes of the media. They simply refuse to admit its level of success.
However we will lose this war, but not a battle, not even a single independent action. And heres why. Because in the next election, the number one election talking point will be a dated pullout for the troops and politically we will abandon the iraqi people. And they will struggle and be consumed in a vacuum and civil war will take place. And we will be seen as the cause of it. And Good ol George is gonna get blamed, and it wont be his fault... It will be the fault of the one who pulls out prematurly. And the Media will finish the job they started....
The only hope for a stable Iraq is continued and full support by our military to finish what we started, anythign less will destabilize the world and give ground to our enemies as "victory against the great white satan" will be the batttle cry for a whole new generation of jihadists.No argument here, that's for sure.
Because we're family, baby! What's family without dispute? :-6
Far Rider wrote: I take exeption to the term "Empire"... When we are done we will leave. (I realize that may be a long time)
No, we won't leave. I've been stationed or visited in foreign lands on military bases that have been operational since WWII. So have you. Japan, Philipines, Korea, England, and Germany for me. Even more for you, I'm sure. Don't we still have troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? We don't leave. The only difference between us and old-school empires is the difference between a corporation and a franchise. Sure, the government is in their name, but it's in our image.
Far Rider wrote: I used to think that a country could operate above board, then I stepped into the US Army and realized that we're a lot better off if the common american is blind dumb and stupid to covert military action. Having said that I dont want to mislead anyone to believe we operate illegally on a regular and purposeful basis, because in my experience thats not the case. But I do realize there have been times when illegal actions took place. Im refering to agreeing with legal but secret activities for national securities sake.
So it's okay to behave without integrity, as long as it's covert? (I'd typed a low blow but deleted it.) Sorry, integrity means strength and consistency throughout, not just on the surface. If it's a choice between being strong or geing good, I choose good every time.
A country can act above board. It's harder. It's less expedient. It's more expensive. But it's possible - and it's preferable, for me.
Far Rider wrote: President Bush, is not a bafoon as some would suggest. Our military is incredible, this war has been almost flawlessly planned, its been brilliantly run. And will go down in history as "text book"... It has been successful on all fronts as far as wars are judged.
The reason this war is veiwed as being handled wrong is because of the media slant in polling... George W, coudlnt win this war no matter what he did in the eyes of the media. They simply refuse to admit its level of success.
However we will lose this war, but not a battle, not even a single independent action. And heres why. Because in the next election, the number one election talking point will be a dated pullout for the troops and politically we will abandon the iraqi people. And they will struggle and be consumed in a vacuum and civil war will take place. And we will be seen as the cause of it. And Good ol George is gonna get blamed, and it wont be his fault... It will be the fault of the one who pulls out prematurly. And the Media will finish the job they started....
The only hope for a stable Iraq is continued and full support by our military to finish what we started, anythign less will destabilize the world and give ground to our enemies as "victory against the great white satan" will be the batttle cry for a whole new generation of jihadists.No argument here, that's for sure.