Bush Accepts Responsibility For Iraq War Mistakes

[AlexRS]

Before the war:

- Saddam has WMDs and will use them

Now:

- removal of brutal dictator

- leave a free and democratic Iraq

- oops

[Kilmer17]

Before the War, Bush listed ALL of those as reasons. In fact, we had MASSIVE debates about them right here. The left's rallying cry was always "Why cant Bush decide on the real reason for war".

You're ignoring those facts is simply convenient now. At the time, Bush was clear there were MANY reasons for the war.

[Popeman38]

Alex,

YES, pre-war intel and the presentation for war CENTERED on WMDs. But one of the other reasons presented to the UN and to the Congress as well as the American people was relief for the Iraqis from Sadaam and a regime change to foster the spread of Democracy through the Middle East. You can't accuse a man of lying simply because you want to. This case was presented. You don't like Bush so it was a lie. Regime change was always part of the reason for going to Iraq. Briush up on the facts.

[AlexRS]

Show me where a Congressman said the only reason they were voting for war was WMDs.

from http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

These are mostly by Dems (consider the source)

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

from http://www.drudge.com/news/75727/democrats-pre-war-quotes

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

There is a pattern here. All of these people are saying we need to go to war because of WMDs. How about this. Can you find me ONE quote about going to war that DOES NOT mention WMDs? Good luck.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Before the War, Bush listed ALL of those as reasons. In fact, we had MASSIVE debates about them right here. The left's rallying cry was always "Why cant Bush decide on the real reason for war".

You're ignoring those facts is simply convenient now. At the time, Bush was clear there were MANY reasons for the war.

I do miss those summer/fall 2002 debates

[Kilmer17]

from http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

These are mostly by Dems (consider the source)

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

from http://www.drudge.com/news/75727/democrats-pre-war-quotes

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

There is a pattern here. All of these people are saying we need to go to war because of WMDs. How about this. Can you find me ONE quote about going to war that DOES NOT mention WMDs? Good luck.

2 points-

1st- Everyone agreed he had WMDs. Thanks for admitting that. Most Dems refuse to acknowldge that.

2nd- Those quotes dont say WMDs are the SOLE or ONLY reason as you are claiming.

WMDS were certainly the MAIN reason for war, but to say they were the ONLY is simply ignorant or partisan.

[Popeman38]

from http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

These are mostly by Dems (consider the source)

There is a pattern here. All of these people are saying we need to go to war because of WMDs. How about this. Can you find me ONE quote about going to war that DOES NOT mention WMDs? Good luck.

Ok, simply because all these quotes mention WMDs, that does not mean Bush and the administration did not present regime change as a reason. It just proves that the quoters chose to focus on the number 1 reason. The CDC is looking for a cure for Avian Flu. There were many reasons given for finding a cure, like to prevent entire flocks of birds from being destroyed. But the MAIN reason is to prevent human deaths. Now, does this mean that the only reason to find a cure is to prevent human death?

[@DCGoldPants]

I think a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMD.

But they couldn't prove it to a point where they were comfortable in risking it by starting a war.

I think this Admin was willing to risk it.

They rolled the dice, and were wrong.

I guess the evidence wasn't enough for the others who thought he had them.

[codeorama]

The case for war was made when Colin Powell spoke about Saddam being an imminent threat. No one really wanted to go to war before that. After Powell, who is universally respected, got up in front of the American People and said that we were in danger because of Saddam, that's when people got scared and wanted to go to war.

Looks like that wasn't the case after all.

It's easy to say there were many reasons, but the nation was not prepared to support a war for many reasons, they were only willing to support it because we were led to believe we were in direct danger from Saddam.

And clearly, that wasnt' true.

[Kilmer17]

I think a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMD.

But they couldn't prove it to a point where they were comfortable in risking it by starting a war.

I think this Admin was willing to risk it.

They rolled the dice, and were wrong.

I guess the evidence wasn't enough for the others who thought he had them.

What do you mean it wasnt enough? It was enough for them to vote for war based on it.

[Predicto]

The case for war was made when Colin Powell spoke about Saddam being an imminent threat. No one really wanted to go to war before that. After Powell, who is universally respected, got up in front of the American People and said that we were in danger because of Saddam, that's when people got scared and wanted to go to war.

Looks like that wasn't the case after all.

It's easy to say there were many reasons, but the nation was not prepared to support a war for many reasons, they were only willing to support it because we were led to believe we were in direct danger from Saddam.

And clearly, that wasnt' true.

I agree completely.

[Kilmer17]

I disagree.

He did have WMDs, we havent found mass quantities, but that doesnt mean that-

A- He didnt have them

B- He wasnt trying to get them

C- He wouldnt have used them or given them to someone to use against us.

We're safer in the US without Saddam in power.

[luckydevil]

I think this Admin was willing to risk it.

I didn't get the feeling at all. In fact, I believed that the administration thought finding WMD would be a "slam dunk". And it would be an easy sell to the American public. They were right

The war was never about WMD.

[codeorama]

We're safer in the US without Saddam in power.

I disagree.

I'm not saying that I wish he was still in power, it's obviously a good thing that he's gone for obvious reasons.

But I don't think we are any safer. I definately don't feel any safer. We are probably more responsible for weapons appearing in other countries than Iraq was.

[Popeman38]

I didn't get the feeling at all. In fact, I believed that the administration thought finding WMD would be a "slam dunk". And it would be an easy sell to the American public. They were right

The war was never about WMD.

And since you are a high level Government Official violating your non-disclosure agreement on a fans message board, you should go to jail just like all the "criminals" in the administration. If you aren't on the inside holding a high level clearance, you will never know everything behind this war. Don't talk from a first hand point of view unless you have one.

[chomerics]

Oh please the economy is humming even with the record hurricane disasters.

The economy is really easy to grow by cutting taxes and increasing spending :doh: Any moron can do that, it takes the great men to actually cut spending. . . something the GOP doesn't have a CLUE on how to do. No matter HOW you look at it, the GOP is the party of spending MY money. It is the party of LARGE government, and the party who is pushing all of THEIR taxes on MY generation :hammer: MY generation is the one that's going to have to pay for their absolutely moronic and idiotic fiscal policy, so YES I think they effed up our economy!!!

2. He came into office with a small recession the tax cuts reversed that and there wasnt a surplus it was cooking the books which both parties are guilty of and its done by including social security dollars in the projections.

No, both parties are not guilty of it, THE REPUBLICANS ARE!!!! Tell me what the Democrats have been able to push through? Do you think the medicade bill was from the Dems??? Look at the vote. How about NCLB? Take another look at THAT vote, and tell me the republicans are not responsible :doh:

A Surplus is in essence the government having too much tax payer money.

A surplus is something Republicans have absolutely NO credibility in dealing with!!! A surplus is what you get when you have a president who is actually a LEADER, and not a complete economic imbecile. Somebody who actually cares about MY generation, and the FUTURE, n ot how much taxpayer money they can give to their friends and campaign contributers. . . but then again, maybe Jack Abrmhof, or Scanlon can tell a lot more about how corrupt the GOP really is. You just completely avoid any discussion of it like the plague, because you can't handle the absolute facts of our country under these crooks!!!

Iraq will be a victory for president Bush, the freedom starving people in the middle east and the world.

You are really so far disillusioned and untouched from reality, it shows in this statement. Do you REALLY think the problems with Iraqi's was freedom??? Do you honestly think the Sunnis were more concerned about freedom? No, they are more concerned about power. It is human nature, and if our fearless leader ever had the foresight to understand the nature of man, maybe he could have understood why Iraq was a HORRIBLE idea. Maybe, once he looks and understands that the religous factions in Iraq will NOT get along, and that civil war is the not only a possible outcome, but a probable one, he will take responsibiility for that too, but I doubt it.

4.corruption is in both parties and we see how corruption and indictments were handled in New Jerey with Toricelli among others

There has never been corruption to the likes of which is going on right now, NEVER. What did it take, all of 5 years to start buying votes? Hell, they changed the freakin rules in the senate every time they could just so they could stack the courts with a bunch of extremist judges. Why SHOULD we think they were no buying votes? Why should we think that business isn't paying off this group of corrupt politicians? Why isn't Ken Lay in freakin jail right now? Maybe because somebody who calls him "Kenny Boy" is in a powerful position?

5. Indictments hmm is that the trumped up DeLay charges that are being thrown out weekly or the weak case about the non covert Valerie Plame?

You are unfreakin believable. The Bush Administration PURPOSELY outs a CIA operative, they lie to federal investegators, they cover up records, they do every single underhanded play in the book, yet you're more concerned about oral sex!!! Only because you were found to root for a bunch of corrupt politicians who have managed to bankrupt our country, and start a war based on lies and propaganda. Yes, you should hold your head high ND.

[luckydevil]

And since you are a high level Government Official violating your non-disclosure agreement on a fans message board, you should go to jail just like all the "criminals" in the administration. If you aren't on the inside holding a high level clearance, you will never know everything behind this war. Don't talk from a first hand point of view unless you have one.

You are right, I don't have any access to any particularly info. It was simply an opinion.

[AlexRS]

2 points-

1st- Everyone agreed he had WMDs. Thanks for admitting that. Most Dems refuse to acknowldge that.

2nd- Those quotes dont say WMDs are the SOLE or ONLY reason as you are claiming.

WMDS were certainly the MAIN reason for war, but to say they were the ONLY is simply ignorant or partisan.

Well, it is hard to deny that everybody agreed he had WMDs. This does not mean everybody thought so (or only said so) for the same reason. Neither does this mean everybody looked at the same intelligence. I've heard that Congress does not get intelligence in the same format as WiteHouse. The biggest difference is - the source of information is not mentioned... I wonder if it's true....

My claim is not that WMDs are the SOLE reason. My claim is that it was the reason why we went to war. This means following:

We take WMD reason alone = we go to war.

We take all other reasons without the WMD reason = we do not go to war.

Agreed?

[macnoke03]

So how many years did it take this worthless piece of **** to finally admit his screw ups. Without a shadow of a doubt Bush has been the worst president and leader this counrty has ever seen. It's a shame that it has taken this long for some of the people who voted for him to realize how horrible he really is. This country has gone through some of its worst years in history on his watch. I am just thankful that we don't have too much more of him in office. It will be a great day when we have a new prez in office, as anybody will be a huge upgrade to this idiot.

[EersSkins05]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the dumbest thing I've ever read:

DEMS have no problem throwing money to reconstruct New Orleans which is built below sea level and lake level, but do not think the American people should rebuild Iraq. So basically saying Americans are more important than Iraqis. I thought the REP were the ones who hated on poor people.

Silly Democrats thinking American tax dollars should be used to rebuild one of America's most loved cities that was destroyed by a natural disaster (as opposed to cities that were destroyed by... wait for it.... American bombs.)

The bottom line is that there were larger threats to our security and larger injustices being done upon foreign citizens by their governments. Unfortunately, those options didn't have such an attractive bottom line to the american oil industry which, coincidentally enough, our President and Vice-President both have significant ties to.

But yet I'm somehow misguided by making that observation...

[chomerics]

Com, Chom, Chom. :doh:

1. This happens when the country IS AT WAR! See, to pay for wars you have to spend unexpected money. So 9/11 cost a ton, Afghan cost a ton, Iraq cost a ton, and Hurricanes cost a ton.

WHEN, in the history of our country, have we EVER given a TAX CUT during war??? :hammer:

(speaking of which, DEMS have no problem throwing money to reconstruct New Orleans which is built below sea level and lake level, but do not think the American people should rebuild Iraq. So basically saying Americans are more important than Iraqis. I thought the REP were the ones who hated on poor people)

You are goddam right Americans are more important then Iraqi's. I don't live in Iraq, my family doesn't live in Iraq, my friends don't live in Iraq, and I could care less about the "people of Iraq" if it amounts to weakening my country, and that is EXACTLY what is going on!!!

2. The $200 Billion surplus was propped up by Social Security. And no President (REP or DEM) would have been able to keep a surplus with 9/11 happenning in their first term. Oh, and the economy was on a slow downslope BEFORE he took office. Now the economy is slowly going up and yet you still say he tanked the economy. Read the history books, it always happens in war.

Bush cut taxes and INCREASED SPENDING!!!!! This is SO FAR beyond the realm of economic theory, it is HORRIBLE!!! To blaim it on 9-11, or the war is false, they add to it, but BY FAR and WIDE, the largest parts of the increase is from the tax cuts, and increased spending. You can not hide behind the gargantuan facts that stare you right in the face.

3. He admits some pre-war intel was faulty. Doesn't change the fact that YOUR preferences for leaders VOTED with him on THE SAME intel. So blame everybody else if you want to blame him. (on a side note, DEMS have been bashing Bush for being dumb since he announced he was running, yet they accuse him of duping the ENTIRE country and half the world. How could such a dummy do that?)

The people I voted for did NOT make the decision to invade the country!!!! The people I VOTED for did not make the most idiotic decision ever made in the history of our country. The people I voted for had the right idea, Bush did NOT do what he said he would, he did not look for peace first, he invaded when it looked like they wouldn't find anything!!!

4. Corruption - Are you kidding me. Show me a 2 term President whose party didn't have some corruption. Keenedy killed someone while drunk and DEMS look at him like a god!

Some corruption? SOME???? You have got to be kidding me. Show me an era when the corruption was HALF as bad as this, just one.

5. Funny, these indictments keep getting trashed. Plame, oh yeah Woodward said he knew about her WAY earlier. DeLay, keep getting dismissed.

Delay did NOT get dismissed, he is busted. So is Abramhof, Libbey, Scanlon, Rove and a bunch of others. Corruption isn't the exception with this lot, it's the NORM!!!

If we had the greatest economy ever, 9/11 had not happened and we didn't do to Afghan or Iraq, you would still hate Bush. The DEMS had TWO chance to beat him and couldn't do it and the REP party is in trouble? If he is so evil and dumb, why couldn't the DEM angel beat him?

Just wait and see, you'll understand after next year's elections, then maybe you'll open up your eyes. . . but somehow I doubt it.

[chomerics]

I swear I cannot look at one thread that says "bush" or "US" in it without you stinking up the place with your ridicolous and wrong views, give it a rest demmy

It's not my fault you can't face reality, maybe you should try it for a change.

[chomerics]

We're safer in the US without Saddam in power.

No we are not. Saddam was a two-bit piss ant dictator. We have no idea what is going to take form in Iraq, and at BEST your statement should say

"We do not KNOW if we are safer without Saddam, but I hope I am right"

I hope you are right too, but why should I believe anything the right says when they have been so horribly wrong time and time again???

I have been saying the only possible solution for Iraq is to divide it up, or civil war. . . we shall see soon who is right.

[stevenaa]

So how many years did it take this worthless piece of **** to finally admit his screw ups. Without a shadow of a doubt Bush has been the worst president and leader this counrty has ever seen. It's a shame that it has taken this long for some of the people who voted for him to realize how horrible he really is. This country has gone through some of its worst years in history on his watch. I am just thankful that we don't have too much more of him in office. It will be a great day when we have a new prez in office, as anybody will be a huge upgrade to this idiot.

Are you serious? Did you not learn history in school? The years under President Bush don't come close to being the worst in this countries history. That is as idiotic a statement as can be made. Why don't you ask someone who lived through the Great Depression if they feel that way. Ask someone who lived throught WWI and WWII if they feel that way. Then theres the Civl war to consider. Get a dose of reality.

And just for the record for those of you who seem to think that History started with the beginning of Bushes Presidency. The intel used said the same thing about Sadaam and WMD's, as did the intel gathered during the previous 2 administrations. And for those who think Intel was witheld from congress, how could it matter when only 6 members of congress managed to read the 89 page intel summary provided prior to voting on the issue.

[stevenaa]

No we are not. Saddam was a two-bit piss ant dictator. We have no idea what is going to take form in Iraq, and at BEST your statement should say

"We do not KNOW if we are safer without Saddam, but I hope I am right"

I hope you are right too, but why should I believe anything the right says when they have been so horribly wrong time and time again???

I have been saying the only possible solution for Iraq is to divide it up, or civil war. . . we shall see soon who is right.

And nothing would make you happier than to be right at the expense of our nations security. How pathetic.