it pains me to continually read about how if you dont support bush's agenda/invasion of iraq than you hate american soldiers and "root for the death" of them. honestly, do you really believe that liberals who are against the war are happy that our troops are getting killed? to quote michael jackson - "thats ignorant"
A couple of things are important to note. 1. I like most folks are super happy that Iraqi elections weren't as bloody as was feared. That is a great credit to the Iraqi people, and to our troops. I will also say that Bush was probably correct for sticking to the deadline for those elections and not bowing under pressure from those opposing the war to postpone them. In that respect I give Bush credit where I didn't before. 2. Because a good thing happened, doesn't justify an war of aggression from the U.S. 3. Despite what has happened U.S. intel agencies say that we are now more likely rather than less likely to face terrorism. I'm all for spreading democracy. But there are beneficial ways of doing this, and there are dishonorable ways of doing this. The U.S. is guilty of handling this in a dishonorable way that I believe actually hurts democracy more than it helps it, despite the elections. If future potential democracies see that the way to spread democracy is at the barrel of a gun, then democracy suffers. For those who claim that Bush had other reasons for going into Iraq it doesn't make sense. It is possible that Bush gave as the way to avoid war for Saddam to get rid of his WMD's. He didn't say that Saddam could avoid war by having free elections. Bush did say that the Iraqis deserve that and listed that as a great by-product on removing Saddam, but not the reason for a U.S. invasion. Bush made claims that weren't true. To say that Bush lied is 100% accurate, but people are looking at two different things. Bush saying that Iraq had WMD wasn't a lie, and the Bush supporters are correct that he could well have been mistaken. But Bush did claim to have read reports which never existed, and that is a lie. Bush also lied when trying to explain that claim, and listed a second report which also never existed, and finally a third report which wasn't even out at the time of his original statement. Furthermore those working for Bush clearly lied time and time again, and those actions were condoned, and nobody in the administration was held accountable for them. Regardless of what happened in the elections in Iraq, lying, ignoring evidence, and invading a country that wasn't a threat is militaristic aggression, of shameful. Because elections happened afterwards doesn't make Bush right.
Actually, Bush said that if Saddam went into exile, there would be no invasion. If one assumes that the removal of Saddam from power would eventually lead to free elections (as has happened) then he did say that Saddam could avoid war by having free elections in which he was not a participant. Given that Bush offered Saddam a way to avoid war that had nothing to do with WMDs, I don't see how it is possible for you to claim that WMDs are the one and only reason for US invasion. It seems obvious to me that the removal of Saddam from power is the other reason for invasion, and both his prewar speaches and the ultimatum given to Saddam bear this out.
I doubt it. Egypt has had pro democracy groups active in Egypt, and even imprisoned in Egypt before. The idea that Egypt should become a democrac isn't new to this administration, and itsn't happening now because Egypt was not in danger of being invaded by that freedom loving Bush. I do believe that Egyptian democracy groups might gain more support from a situation like Lebanon where we see democracy being spread organically from within and not by force where another powerful nation is pointing a gun at people saying be a democracy or else... I think pressures from within more than pressure from without is helping Mubarak see the light.
In the same breath he mentioned Saddam going into exile, that was at the point the invasion was planned because of WMD, and with WMD as the only option for Iraq to avoid war. Coming up with a new way to avoid war 2 days before the invasion isn't exactly the same as having another cause for the war which had been in planning for over a year with the only way to avoid it being coming clean with WMD's. Furthermore the very ultimatum you mention did happen to deal with WMD's and was issued BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO DEAL WITH WMD's. The reason he demanded exile was because of Saddam's refusal to deal with WMD's. Here is something that Karen Hughes said about it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Hughes, a former White House aide who was helping Bush prepare for the speech, said the president would set a deadline for the Iraqi leader to leave. She added that the speech, expected to last about 15 minutes, would present "a summation of what we have tried to accomplish at the U.N. Security Council, what we have tried to accomplish peacefully and of the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons pose to the world." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81233,00.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bush's own statement deals with Saddam and his 'deceit' about WMD's ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ President Bush said in his ultimatum on 17 Mar., 'All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.' <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bush also didn't even live up to his offer, and tried to bomb early because of an attack of opportunity. To say that the offer of exile didn't have anything to do with WMD's just isn't true, nor was the offer legitimate as Bush didn't live up to his offer and his another example of Bush being dishonest.
nobody is saying that WMD's were the ONLY reason, but you cant deny that it was the MAIN reason. it was the ONLY reason that the american public went along with bush on his invasion of iraq. no way the american public would have supported a war to nation build. yes the removal of saddam was a reason and yes, freeing the iraqi people was a reason however before the invasion bush said that iraq had WMD's and was a immediate threat and a preemptive strike was necessary to protect the homeland. iraq had weapons and he was going to give them to terrorists who would use them on us. he scared the american public into going along with his iraq invasion. as late as feb 2003 most americans still believed that iraq was involved in 9/11! that is why we invaded. though it is a byproduct, the spread of deomacracy was not the main reason.
