Bush takes blame

[RandomThug]

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN142 76640&imageid=top-news-view-2005-12-14-200523-eRPPISA%5B30%5D.jpg&cap=U.S.%20President%20George% 20W.%20Bush%20delivers%20remarks%20on%20the%20war% 20on%20terror%20in%20Washington,%20December%2014,% 202005.%20As%20Iraq%20prepared%20for%20its%20elect ion,%20President%20Bush%20on%20Wednesday%20vowed%2 0the%20United%20States%20will%20stay%20in%20Iraq%2 0%22until%20victory%20is%20achieved%22%20and%20he% 20defended%20his%20decision%20to%20go%20to%20war.% 20Bush%20gave%20the%20fourth%20in%20a%20series%20o f%20speeches%20that%20the%20White%20House%20has%20 used%20to%20try%20to%20explain%20his%20administrat ion's%20strategy%20amid%20a%20drumbeat%20of%20crit icism%20from%20Democrats%20who%20say%20Bush%20does %20not%20have%20a%20plan%20on%20Iraq.%20%20%20%20% 20%20REUTERS/Jim%20Young

WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush took the blame on Wednesday for going to war in Iraq over faulty intelligence but said he was right to topple Saddam Hussein and urged Americans to be patient as Iraqis vote.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities and we're doing just that," he said.

But he said, "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision" because he was deemed a threat and that regardless, "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator."

more at link

[Phreddie]

Well, first I have to say, FINALLY!

Second: never can fully admit he made the wrong choice in the war (please, argue it was the right, I really would like to hear reasoning, no one I have heard support can give a good reason, though that may be due to the massive amount of people who blindly support the Republican party at my school just because their parents are republicans... ) he says it was the right thing to do, and I must say that I am glad Saddam is gone, and that I also tohught he was a bad man, but since when did that give us the right to meddle in the affairs of another country, with force, war for power is one thing (wrong though it maybe, it is a part of human instinct), but for a war to occur, with no provocation, and little firm support, to fight to free an opressed people, most of whom didnt (at the time, very few had lived under a democratic government, and many were scared of change) want to have this new governemnt that would be force dupon them. It makes me so angry...

...o sorry for rant.

To make a long rant short, I am glad the Bush was finally able to admit one of his mistakes, how ever I am deeply saddened by the fact that the mistake was made in the first place.

[Rookierookie]

The end justifies the means...

[krunchyfrogg]

Originally Posted by Phreddie

... I also tohught he was a bad man, but since when did that give us the right to meddle in the affairs of another country,

It's part of the responsibility that comes with being the most powerful country in the world. The USA needs to defend the oppressed who can not defend themselves.

[Rookierookie]

...

I will not bother picking holes out of Swiss cheese. Let's just say that there are people worse off than the Iraqis under Hussein's regime.

[fable]

Guys, there is nothing new, here. Bush and Rumsfeld previously used the same tactic of taking the blame to divert attention from other issues, when the Iraqi prison abuse scandal first broke. Once they'd admitted to errors, they said nothing more was to be discussed. And in any case, he's merely repeating what he's said before: that if intelligence was faulty, he would see that it is improved. He never admitted that he turned away the counsel of several advisors at the time who said the intelligence was bad.

And finally, the real part of the message: to reiterate that he made the right decision to go into Iraq. That was all he wanted to do: get another photo op in which he could restate that nonsense ad nauseum.

So who cares about this nonsense?

[Phreddie]

Aye, but the cost of the war, those resources could have been better used, those lives, better, longer lived... In this case i dont believe the ends justified the means, civil unrest for decades (more so than the normal bombings you here about in that region)...its too late for me to think and argue, I honestly dont tihnk that Bush made the right choice, I dont mean about Saddam, that I agree, however, a more peaceful option should have been taken. IF saddam had no reason to expect war, he would not have hidden, an unhidden, unfearful man makes an easy target, eventually he would show his true colors, the world closely scrutininzing from afar, would then pounce in take him out, and we would have a higher degree of international cooperation... of course i see the argument on how much time... If it took too long other methods could be taken... more extreme methods.

And the fact that we have the responibility to take care of the weak, i agree... kinda. I think we should help, but with the U.N. they are the internatinal body after all, we govern ourselves but help others too, with support from more than a few 'key' allies. Also just a question, I sorta know the answer it always makes me mad (I know that they might not apreciate it but hey, Ill apreciate it for them) If were (trying to) help the opressed, impoverished, and the (as my hpysics teacher puts it) 'not quite there yets' why do we meet with so much oppposition?

[Aegis]

Common tactic used by politicians. He is simply diverting attention away from the matters on hand, primarily that of the continuously rising death toll in Iraq, of both American soldiers and Iraqi's, not to mention the number of hostages that have been taken. By 'admitting' and accepting the blame of going into Iraq, he is trying to take covergae off the fact that it has been, and continues to be a bumbling and poorly managed campaign.

Additionally, and this is something that careful attention has to be paid too, you'll notice now that the reason has become to remove Huessain from power, as opposed to obtaining and removing the WMD's. The focus of this war in Iraq has shifted a number of times, each time in a manner which would suit the brass in the White House (Need I remind you that originally there were also supposed ties to Terrorism in Iraq. Well, there are now, but that's because it has become a unifed front for all those who hate America).

Basically, Bush is doing his job phenominally well right now. He is shifting the focus onto himself, allowing for his closest friends to continue to reap the rewards of his administration, and further bleed the country. Bush is not the moron people play him out to be, he is simply playing his role, and the more I analyse and watch the man, the more Machiavellian he seems to be. It is rather frightening, because this is a man who knows exactly what he is doing.

Oh, and on the note of Saddam being in power or not, I'm still very torn. I still feel that there is a void of power which requires filling, and once the US military presence is out of Iraq, the tides will come rushing in. And who is to say the Iraqi's will get someone better than Saddam...

[TonyMontana1638]

... That may very well be the longest URL Link I have ever seen Random Thug .

Props to you

[VonDondu]

"I am responsible for the mistakes other people made, but I still did the right thing" is not exactly an admission of personal error, so I'm not impressed. Show me an instance where Bush has actually said, "I made a mistake," and maybe you'll have an interesting story.

Bush claims, "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator," but as always, he cannot tell us exactly what those goals are. Three years ago, the goal was supposedly the removal of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, but it has constantly shifted to something else for the sake of political expedience. So I agree with Fable: there is nothing new here, and it's total nonsense.

[qwertitus]

Since I live in the great state of "AHEM" New Jersey I have never heard anyone say anything good about the war in Iraq (or the current government for that matter) but besides that the war was to something that needed to be done. Iraq, Iran, North Korea (the so-called "axis of evil") all needed to be disarmed as well as many other many other countries in the world. I don't think you could honestly say that if Bush waited a few more months the U.N. would have put enough pressure upon Iraq that it would disarm. But in that time there would be a truly united force against Iraq.

One the major problem that most people have with Bush is that he has been trying to dodge all the things that went wrong with Iraq. He went from partners with Al-quadi (Did I spell that right?) to weapons of mass distruction to my favorite excuse ever: spreading freedom. If Bush just had come out and said what he did right in that article I think the media would have appreciated his honesty. Then the CIA would've been in the hot seat instead of Bush. You can't blame Bush soley for faulty intelligence that half the world had at that time.

[Rookierookie]

Iraq, Iran, North Korea (the so-called "axis of evil") all needed to be disarmed as well as many other many other countries in the world

We don't exactly live in a world where if you are unarmed people come to protect you, you know. None of the above three countries have very friendly neighbours. Iraq is near Israel and, yes, Iran, and Kuwait has reason to bear a grudge; Iran is near Israel and of course Iraq, and North Korea is near China, South Korea, and Japan. I'm prepared to bet a lot of money that if someone else invades them, the US won't raise a finger to help them defend themselves.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by qwertitus

Iraq, Iran, North Korea (the so-called "axis of evil") all needed to be disarmed...

Iraq? Seriously? How do you "disarm" a country that has no weapons? And what exactly are we doing about the real weapons that Iran and North Korea possess? When Bush debated Kerry, he said that Kerry was a fool for proposing diplomacy with those countries, but guess what Bush's plan is now? Diplomacy. Funny, eh?

Originally Posted by qwertitus

You can't blame Bush solely for faulty intelligence that half the world had at that time.

No, I don't suppose the Bush administration is solely to blame for the widespread misconception that Saddam Hussein ever posed a threat to the United States. There's plenty of blame to go around. But the Bush administration is responsible for: 1) actually paying people like Ahmad Chalabi for information that turned out to be false (Chalabi was trying to trick the United States government into helping him pursue his own private agenda, and it worked); 2) using torture to extract confessions from "terrorists" that turned out to be false (the Russians who invented those torture techniques could tell you that they are normally used by oppressive regimes to extract false confessions from prisoners, which seems to fit Bush's plans perfectly); 3) pressuring CIA analysts to supply information that would support the administration's bogus case against Saddam Hussein; 4) stifling dissenting views and firing people who wouldn't "toe the line"; 5) setting up a special office under Vice President Dlck Cheney to "pipeline" and "cherry-pick" raw intelligence before it was even reviewed by intelligence analysts; 6) repeating false information (for example, in the State of the Union address or in Powell's speech to the U.N.) even after intelligence analysts informed the administration that it was false; and 7) claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 in every frigging speech Bush makes. Let's see if Bush ever takes any responsibility for any of THAT.

You know what the problem is? Bush's mother, Barbara Bush, believes that someone else is always to blame for her son's mistakes, and she's one of the only people he listens to nowadays. So I figure Bush will never feel accountable for anything in his life.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by qwertitus

Since I live in the great state of "AHEM" New Jersey I have never heard anyone say anything good about the war in Iraq (or the current government for that matter) but besides that the war was to something that needed to be done. Iraq, Iran, North Korea (the so-called "axis of evil") all needed to be disarmed as well as many other many other countries in the world. I don't think you could honestly say that if Bush waited a few more months the U.N. would have put enough pressure upon Iraq that it would disarm. But in that time there would be a truly united force against Iraq.
<snip>

Except you can't disarm a country which had little to no arms.

Originally Posted by qwertitus

One the major problem that most people have with Bush is that he has been trying to dodge all the things that went wrong with Iraq. He went from partners with Al-quadi (Did I spell that right?) to weapons of mass distruction to my favorite excuse ever: spreading freedom. If Bush just had come out and said what he did right in that article I think the media would have appreciated his honesty. Then the CIA would've been in the hot seat instead of Bush. You can't blame Bush soley for faulty intelligence that half the world had at that time.

Well - infact you can blame Bush for the faulty intelligence indeed. If the CIA comes out and says something, but many other in the world says something else.... it is time to stop and think for a moment. Any rational person would do this, granted the world was in aftershock of the 9/11 and saw enemies everywhere (and likely still do), but going off to war on what proved to be a very marginal "prof" and then constantly changeing premisse is indeed only one persons fault. The instigator.
Now personally - I see it as good that S.Hussein was removed and that Iraq has a chance to become "free" (although the cynic in me says it will not last, but that's a different discussion), however, doing so on misleading arguments - is only Bushes fault.

Problem is that if he started by saying that he did it to spread freedom,then it begs the choice of why Iraq over say N.Korea? - The logical answer is because N.Korea *actually* has WMDs. He if was to track terrorists, then Saudi Arabia is reported to be a much larger terrorists-recruiting and harboring area then Iraq ever was. Saddam Hussein was not viewed as a "real" muslim by these radical islamist as I understand it (might be wrong). All choices point to other reasons

There are so many things which doesn't fit together, and thus - yes - Bush can and should be blamed for faulty intelligence from the agencies, because he only used that as the public reason.

[Dottie]

@qwertitus: It's also important to remember that US media isn't equal to "half the world". In case someones memory needs to be refreshed the IAEA stated clearly that they could not find any evidence of WMDs, and that's what the other half that isn't US media did choose to believe.