Thursday, December 21, 2006

Bush's Reason #53 For Why The U.S. Went To Iraq: "To Help Young Democracies Survive The Threats Of Radicalism And Extremism"

From yesterday's press conference:

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER SHERYL GAY STOLBERG: But beyond that, sir, do you question your own decisions?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out, nor have I questioned the necessity for the American people -- I mean, I've questioned it; I've come to the conclusion it's the right decision
.

To some, that sounds a little silly. Bush essentially says, "I still agree with myself." Not very newsworthy, especially from this president.

But pay attention to what Bush said next:

BUSH: But I also know it's the right decision for America to stay engaged, and to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time, Sheryl. And I firmly believe it is necessary. And I believe the next President, whoever the person is, will have the same charge, the same obligations to deal with terrorists so they don't hurt us, and to help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism."

Is this why the U.S. went to Iraq, Mr. President? "To help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism?"

Seems that may be why the U.S. is there now, but it couldn't possibly be the reason the U.S. decided to "take Saddam Hussein out," right? Wasn't the reason ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "slam dunk" that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and the need to be pre-emptive, rather than risk Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons and creating a "mushroom cloud"?

***

If the Bush Administration is so concerned that fledgling Middle East democracies "survive the threats of radicalism and extremism," why hasn't the U.S. been a leader in helping administer the "Roadmap" toward lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace, and in the process help the fledgling Palestinian democracy?

While the Bush administration -- as conservative pundit William F. Buckley said -- was "engulfed by Iraq" -- the terrorist group Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

Would such election results have occurred otherwise? It's hard to say.

What we do know is that spin is not a foreign policy. Words without actions do have ramifications. Just ask those who bought Bush's spin that the "Roadmap" was a step toward the U.S. brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and helping the fledgling Palestinian democracy "survive the threats of radicalism and extremism."

The same can be said for Egypt, where the U.S. allowed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to stomp on Egypt's fledgling democratic movement?

As the Washington Post wrote recently in an editorial, Mubarak, with "tacit consent of the Bush Administration ... is continuing his campaign against the democratic movement that sprouted in his country last year. His latest target is the fledgling independent press. ... Last week Mr. Mubarak's ruling party reaffirmed a law that makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment, to 'affront the president of the republic' -- or insult parliament, public agencies, the armed forces, the judiciary or "the general public interest."

What did the U.S. do to help this fledgling democratic movement "survive?" Nothing.

As Nir Boms, vice president of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East, wrote in the Washington Times, "President Bush rejected a bill that sought to tie some of the American assistance to Egypt with democratic reforms. ... (W)hen Mr. Nour was arrested, the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Francis J. Ricciardone, declined to comment, giving a subtle green light for (Mubarak) to accelerate his crackdown."

7 Comments:

Anonymous Kikosexy2 said...

The press...should just boycott the Preznut in protest...you would think of the bullsh*t they get daily from this idiot, they'd finally throw up their hands and say enough with this sh*t....but paid whore press wouldn't do that would they?

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

or they could just ask better follow ups

Bush says something, they should be as prepared as I am to say, "But, sir ..."

9:07 PM  
Anonymous whathappened said...

shit for brains had the nerve to tell that lady repoter to speak up , are u getting old he said and the snickers to himself , man i can't take this shit anymore , must not watch him , it gives be reasons to bitch slap him for the little shit he is

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

whathappened,
Your post is very enlightening to see how liberals think and act. Your all lowercase rant proves your lack of education and your typos and "abbreviations" pretty much tell me you have yet to graduate elementary school.

It would be an educational benefit to you loons if you actually read the war resolution and came to the conclusion that we went to war for a lot more reason other than WMD's and this was is not only legal it it noble.

With that said maybe if Sandy Berger would show us what documents he stole then maybe it would shed some light on the reason for war and it would open the eyes of you loons. But that is going to happen because someone has got to cover KKKlintons ass.

8:48 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Anonymous:
Unlike yourself, I provided a link to the War Resolution:
http://tinyurl.com/yjtpwq
By my estimates, ninety percent of the stated reasons in the resolution for invading Iraq had to do with Sadaam/Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs. That was the overriding theme.
The remaining lesser points, which Bushie apologists like anonymous above like to highlight today, concerned Sadaam's connections to 9-11/Al Quada (another matter we have found to have been completely false), alleged support of other unnamed terrorism organizations, Sadaam's "repression of the civilian population" as posing a threat to the security of the region, and an earlier UN resolution for the U.S. to support efforts of others to establish a Democratic government in Iraq.

My point is. anonymous, if not for the bogus WMD claims, there would have been no support from congress or the American people for this resolution. Even Bush himself said he was opposed to using the U.S. military for nation building. Your "noble cause" argument falls short.

Now for some historical perspective:
It's interesting to read the newsstories from the period
http://tinyurl.com/ccbls
The opposition to the resolution from Democrats and others clearly demonstrates the matter with the UN inspections of Iraq/Sadaam's alleged WMDs had not been resolved.
Any historical revisionist/Bushie apologist who tells you otherwise is full of baloney.
If Bush had listened to the Democrats and our allies (outside of Great Britain) and let the UN inspections run their course, the invasion and the quagmire we find ourselves in today never would have been allowed to happen.
In addition, Iraq officials, not Sadaam, such as Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the WMD allegation "lies" and freely invited U.S. officials into the country to conduct inspections. Bush was too pigheaded to take up his offer.
And now Chimp wants to extrapolate a similiar failed "never negotiate with your enemies" policy for Iraq and Syria.
Moron.
One final point I bounce off a quote from the time of the war resolution from Sen. John McCain, who tried to counter skeptics.
"But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.
"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said."
What an idiot.
And, like Bush, some still give this moron credibility for his opinions on Iraq today.

12:16 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said It would be an educational benefit to you loons if you actually read the war resolution and came to the conclusion that we went to war for a lot more reason other than WMD's and this was is not only legal it it noble.

... a lot more reason(s)..this (was?)is not only legal it (it?) noble

and you call others idiots or elementary educated?? Typical of you!!

6:18 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Intelligence Capacity Rankings, 2006:

1. Stephen Hawking
.
.
.
.
.
5,313,341,866: A snow tire
5,313,341,867: The average sock
5,313,341,868: Anonymous
5,313,341,869: Vomit

1:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares