stv-archives.com - Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence

Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:02 am

FAQ

Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence
View: previous topic :: next topic

stv-archives.com Forum Index -> World News

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

Author

Message

IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed

Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:39 pm Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence

Quote:

Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence
President says removing Hussein still 'right decision'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the eve of Iraq's historic election, President Bush took responsibility Wednesday for "wrong" intelligence that led to the war, but he said removing Saddam Hussein was still necessary.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision," the president said. "Saddam was a threat and the American people, and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

Bush spoke at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

Meanwhile, 48 percent of respondents to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they thought it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, as opposed to 54 percent of those polled last month. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percent. Fifty percent said it was not a mistake, compared to 45 percent last month. The president's approval rating is 42 percent -- up 4 percent from November.

A successful election in Iraq on Thursday to establish the nation's first permanent, democratically elected government would do much to bolster the theme of Bush's speeches: that his administration's war is working. (Watch Iraqis getting out the vote -- 2:00)

"We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom," Bush said. "Iraqis will go to the polls to choose a government that will be the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. Yet we need to remember that these elections are also a vital part of a broader strategy in protecting the American people against the threat of terrorism."

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania -- a usually hawkish Democrat who has called for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- criticized Bush's policy again after the address.

"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military," Murtha said. "I've said this over and over again: They're not good at nation building. You've given them a mission which they cannot carry out. They do they best they can, but they can't do it."

Before the speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said 41 Democratic senators had sent a letter to Bush "to show that we need to get things right in Iraq after these elections."

"The president has had a number of speeches -- three in number -- and he has still not focused on what needs to be done in convincing the American people and showing the American people what his plan is in Iraq," Reid said.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said the letter urges the Bush administration "to tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is necessary for defeating the insurgency."

"The president still has not stated how long his administration believes the (war) will take and how much it will cost in terms of funding and in terms of the commitment of American military and civilian personnel," Reed said.

In the poll, 49 percent of respondents said neither side is winning the war, 13 percent said the insurgents are winning and 36 percent said the United States is winning.

On Monday, speaking in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of the U.S. Constitution, Bush compared Iraq's struggles with American history.

"It took a four-year civil war and a century of struggle after that before the promise of our Declaration (of Independence) was extended to all Americans," Bush said. "It is important to keep this history in mind as we look at the progress of freedom and democracy in Iraq."

The president unexpectedly took questions from the audience, including one from a woman who asked Bush how many Iraqi "civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators" had been killed in the war.

"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Bush said. "We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said Bush was basing his statement on media reports, "not an official government estimate."

About 160,000 American troops are in Iraq. The Pentagon says it hopes to reduce the number to 138,000 by the summer and 100,000 by the end of 2006.

During his speech December 7, Bush said the United States has succeeded in helping Iraq improve its economy and infrastructure -- which he called the "battle after the battle."

"Over the course of this war, we have learned that winning the battle for Iraqi cities is only the first step," Bush said. "We also have to win the battle after the battle by helping Iraqis consolidate their gains and keep the terrorists from returning."

And during his first speech of the series, on November 30, Bush told students at the U.S. Naval Academy, "As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists." (Transcript)

CNN's Sumi Das and Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report.

Source: CNN.com

Okay, I can see why he had to do this for bureaucratic purposes, but it's still pretty stupid. Congress still has to give the go-ahead for war. And once again, it isn't exactly his fault for acting on intelligence that was false. I don't necessarily agree with how the US went into Iraq, but I still think we did the right thing by removing Hussein from power. What's done is done, and now we should stay to help establish a secure government.

Good to see his approval rating is up a tad, too.

-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative

Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:01 pm

I was planning on posting the whole speech in the stickied Iraq topic. It was a GREAT speech. I am VERY happy that the President is finally standing up, on the defense and attack, and is reinforcing his opinions about Iraq.
I managed to catch most of his speech this morning, and I must say, it was fantastic. I have gained more faith in the president for doing what he should have done long ago.
And I knew his polls were going to go up right when he started doing this, as I'm quite sure I predicted earlier. And that's good to see. But naturally that would happen. The American people were questioning him with the relentless attacks against him that were unabated, and since he's finally standing up and reinforcing his position...yeah, it's looking good for him.

Go Bush!

"When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
--George W. Bush

-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

TrekkieMage
Office Junkie

Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding

Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:46 pm

Republican_Man wrote:

"When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
--George W. Bush

That quote confuses me to no end. How cryptic can he be?

Back on topic:

I'm glad that they are admitting they messed up. It's a very mature and reasonable action. Although, I am curious as to they would have reveiled this information had the public not been quite so livid about the war.

Quote:

On Monday, speaking in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of the U.S. Constitution, Bush compared Iraq's struggles with American history.

Quote:

About 160,000 American troops are in Iraq. The Pentagon says it hopes to reduce the number to 138,000 by the summer and 100,000 by the end of 2006.

For this I am increadibly grateful. I do hope however that they withdrawl them in a fashion that is as safe as possible for the remaining troops.

Overall I have mixed feelings about this. Mostly negative, but mixed.

One thing that has become increasingly apparent to me is the fact that is seems that the war is controlling Bush more and more, and he is controlling it less and less. And that is not a good thing for him.

Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative

Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:53 pm

TrekkieMage wrote:

Republican_Man wrote:

"When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
--George W. Bush

That quote confuses me to no end. How cryptic can he be?

Cryptic? What? How? No, it's not.
And what I meant to say is "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," not when. My apologies.

Back on topic:

I'm glad that they are admitting they messed up. It's a very mature and reasonable action. Although, I am curious as to they would have reveiled this information had the public not been quite so livid about the war.

Admitting intelligence mistakes. Okay, good. It's good to make mistakes--but that's not all he said. He backed up his reasons for going to Iraq and why it was a good thing as well.

Quote:

On Monday, speaking in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of the U.S. Constitution, Bush compared Iraq's struggles with American history.

That's ridiculus. We willingly began our revolution, we had no dictator, and no one came into our country with the same force and...totality is the best word I can think of, that we are now using in Iraq. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that that particular statement is flawed. We also came up with our own Constitution without basing it off of any single other document - rather various ideal and other models of government. We created and increadibly unique document, which we are trying to help the Iraqi government duplicate (in a sense).

You don't seem to see the point. What he meant by his comparison is, as I recall, that they have gone to this point even farther than we did in this short of time, in terms of the Constitution and what have you. It's not flawed, and he's right in saying what he said.
And by the way. Their Constitution is QUITE different from ours

Quote:

About 160,000 American troops are in Iraq. The Pentagon says it hopes to reduce the number to 138,000 by the summer and 100,000 by the end of 2006.

Mostly negative feelings? You really can't be happy much at all with him, can you? Bah. I am very impressed with this. He's done just the right thing. What more could you want?

And the war is controlling him? NO! Far from it! He's going on the offensive and defensive because he NEEDS to. Look at his approval raings, feelings about the war, and the negative press about him and the war. He needed to go out and give his case and defend his side. But of course it's GOT to be the war controlling him, doesn't it?

-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus

Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:56 pm

TrekkieMage wrote:

Quote:

On Monday, speaking in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of the U.S. Constitution, Bush compared Iraq's struggles with American history.

I believe the term that was used in that era was tyrant, which I'd imagine is interchangable w/ dictator.
And our constitution has many things in it that we picked up from other countries, we're just the ones who put them all together.

-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars

Puck
The Texan

Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596

Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:00 pm

Theresa wrote:

TrekkieMage wrote:

Quote:

On Monday, speaking in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of the U.S. Constitution, Bush compared Iraq's struggles with American history.

Plus don't forget the French who donated weapons, cash, and troops (in surprisingly large amounts)!

I heart Frenchies

Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus

Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:03 pm

I knew you'd take care of that part for me,

-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars

Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative

Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:06 pm

Exactly. So, yeah, there are a lot of similarities, actually, between Iraq and the US--enough for Bush to compare the two, rightfully so. Particularly in how quickly they've gone, when compared to us.
Anyways, here's the transcript of our President's great speech today:

Quote:

Transcript of Bush speech
WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the historic vote for Iraq's parliament, President Bush on Wednesday defended his decision to go to war in the fourth and final in a series of speeches outlining the U.S. strategy for victory.

Following is a transcript of Bush's address from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington:

Thank you, all. Thank you very much. Please be seated.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

I'm delighted to be here with the men and women of the Wilson Center. According to your mission statement, the center was created to bring together two groups: political leaders and scholars. I see some of the political leaders who are here, and I presume you've invited me to uphold the scholars' end.

I've come to discuss an issue of vital importance to the American people. And that is victory on the war on terror.

September 11, 2001, our nation awoke to a sudden attack, and we accepted new responsibilities. We are confronting new dangers with firm resolve.

We are hunting down the terrorists and their supporters. We will fight this war without wavering. And we will prevail.

In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front. And over the last few weeks, I've been discussing our political, economic and military strategy for victory in that country.

A historical election will take place tomorrow in Iraq. And as millions of Iraqis prepare to cast their ballots, I want to talk today about why we went into Iraq, why we stayed in Iraq, and why we cannot and will not leave Iraq until victory is achieved.

I want to thank Ambassador [Joe] Gildenhorn for inviting me and introducing me, and I want to thank the members of the board of trustees who are here.

I appreciate Lee Hamilton, who serves our nation so well in so many different capacities.

Thank you for being the president and director of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

I'm proud to be traveling today with members of my Cabinet: Secretary of State Condi Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of Homeland Security Mike Chertoff.

Thank you all for coming.

I appreciate members of the Congress who are here. Thanks for taking time to come.

I want to thank members of the Diplomatic Corps that have joined us today.

And thank you all for being here as well.

We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom. Most of the focus now is on this week's elections and rightly so.

Iraqis will go to the polls to choose a government that will be the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. Yet we need to remember that these elections are also a vital part of a broader strategy for protecting the American people against the threat of terrorism.

We saw the future the terrorists intend for our nation on that fateful morning of September 11, 2001. That day we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors are no longer enough to protect us.

September 11 changed our country. It changed the policy of our government.

We adopted a new strategy to protect the American people. We would hunt down the terrorists wherever they hide. We would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them. And we would advance our security at home by advancing freedom in the Middle East.

September 11 also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein.

We saw the destruction terrorists could cause with airplanes loaded with jet fuel. And we imagined the destruction they could cause with even more powerful weapons.

At the time, the leaders of both political parties recognized this new reality. We cannot allow the world's most dangerous men to get their hands on the world's most dangerous weapons.

In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
'Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong'

We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the "no-fly" zones.

He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.

Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions, including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs.

When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity.

At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war. The choice was Saddam Hussein's.

When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.
'I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq'

As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we are doing just that.

At the same time, we must remember that an investigations after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way.

Given Saddam's history, and the lessons of September 11, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat, and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.

We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.

As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq has showed the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions. So we are helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous, and an example for the broader Middle East.

The terrorists understand this. And that is why they have now made Iraq the central front in the war on terror.

The enemy of freedom in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists and Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists, ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein. We believe that over time most of this group will be persuaded to support the democratic Iraq, led by a federal government that is strong enough to protect minority rights.

We are encouraged by the indications that many Sunnis intend to participate in tomorrow's elections.

The Saddamists are former regime loyalists who harbor dreams of returning to power. And they are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. Yet they lack popular support, and over time they can be marginalized and defeated by the security forces of a free Iraq.

The terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda are the smallest but most lethal group. They are led by a brutal terrorist named [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi.

He's al Qaeda's chief operations officer in Iraq. He has stated his allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

The terrorists have ambitions. They have goals. They want to stop the advance of freedom in Iraq. They want to make Iraq what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven from which they can plot attacks against our people.

There is no limit to their brutality. They kill the innocent to achieve their aims.

This is an enemy without conscience. And again, such enemy, there is only one effective response. We will never back down, we will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

Last month my administration released a document called the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." And in recent weeks I've been discussing our strategy with the American people.

At the U.S. Naval Academy, I spoke about how we changed our approach to training Iraqi security forces so they can take the fight to the enemy and eventually take responsibility for the security of their citizens without major foreign assistance.
'Iraqi forces are becoming more and more capable'

Iraqi forces are becoming more and more capable. This time last year there was only a handful of Iraqi battalions ready for combat. Now there are more than 125 Iraqi army and police combat battalions in the fight against the terrorists. Of these, more than 70 Iraqi battalions are fighting side by side with coalition forces, and more than 50 others are taking the lead in the fight.

So far in December there have been more than 900 combat operations in Iraq at the company level or above, and 75 percent of these involved Iraqi security forces either in the lead or fighting side by side with our coalition. As these Iraqi forces grow in size and strength, American and coalition forces can concentrate on training Iraqis and hunting down high-valued targets like [al-]Zarqawi and his associates.

Last week before the Council on Foreign Relations I explained how we changed our approach to help Iraqis hold and rebuild cities taken from the enemy and how to help them revitalize Iraq's infrastructure and economy. Today, many cities like Mosul and Najaf are coming back to life, and Iraq's economy is growing.

Thousands of new businesses have opened in Iraq. Personal income is up. And according to one survey, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the next year.

Earlier this week at the Philadelphia World Affairs Council I spoke in-depth about how we changed our approach to helping the Iraqis build their democracy. At the request of Iraqi leaders, we accelerated the transition to Iraqi self-government. We set four major milestones to guide Iraq's transition to constitutional democracy: the transfer sovereignty, elections for a transitional government, the adoption of a democratic constitution, and elections for a new government under that constitution.

In spite of the violence, Iraqis have met every milestone. And this is changing the political landscape in Iraq.

Sunni Arabs who failed to participate in the January elections are now campaigning vigorously in this week's elections. And we can expect a higher turnout of Sunni voters.

As Sunnis join the political process, Iraqi democracy becomes more inclusive and the terrorists and Saddamists are becoming marginalized.

Each of the changes we have made in our approach in Iraq is helping us meet the hard realities and the facts on the ground. We have adapted our tactics. We have fixed what was not working. And we have listened to those who know best, our military commanders and the Iraqi people.

Our tactics continue to change, but our goal in Iraq has not changed: a free and democratic Iraq.

I strongly believe a democratic Iraq is a crucial part of our strategy to defeat the terrorists, because only democracy can bring freedom and reconciliation to Iraq and peace to this troubled part of the world.

Our efforts to advance freedom in Iraq are driven by our vital interests and our deepest beliefs. America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. And we believe that the people of the Middle East desire freedom as much as we do.

History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations. And as Iraqi democracy takes hold, Iraqi citizens will have a stake in a calm and a peaceful future.

As we advance the cause of freedom in Iraq, our nation can proceed with confidence, because we have done this kind of work before. After World War II, President Harry Truman believed that the way to help bring peace and prosperity to Asia was to plant the seeds of freedom and democracy in Japan.

Like today, there were many skeptics and pessimists who said that the Japanese were not ready for democracy. Fortunately, President Harry Truman stuck to his guns. He believed, as I do, in freedom's power to transform an adversary into an ally. And because he stayed true to his convictions, today Japan is one of the world's freest and most prosperous nations, and one of America's closest allies in keeping the peace.

The spread of freedom to Iraq and the Middle East requires the same confidence and persistence. And it will lead to the same results.

The people of Iraq are now seeing some of the tangible benefits of their new democracy. They see that as freedom advances their lives are improving.

Iraqis have approved a bold constitution that guarantees the rule of law and freedom of assembly, and property rights, and freedom of speech in the press, and women's rights and the right to vote. They see their freedom increasingly being defended by their own soldiers and police instead of foreign forces. And they see that freedom is bringing opportunity and a better life.

Iraqis still face many challenges, including security and reconstruction and economic reform. But they are building a strong democracy that can handle these challenges. And that will be a model for the Middle East. Freedom in Iraq will inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran.

This new Iraq shares our deepest values, and it shares our most determined enemies. By helping Iraqis build a nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, we will gain an ally in the war on terror and a partner for peace in the Middle East.
'We will not leave until victory has been achieved'

The stakes in Iraq are high. And we will not leave until victory has been achieved.

Today there is an intense debate about the importance of Iraq to the war on terror. The constant headlines about car bombings and killings have led some to ask whether our presence in Iraq has made America less secure.

This view presumes that if we were not in Iraq the terrorists would be leaving us alone. The reality is that the terrorists have been targeting America for years, long before we ever set foot in Iraq.

We were not in Iraq in 1993 when the terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York. We were not in Iraq in 1998 when the terrorists bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq in 2000 when the terrorists killed 17 American sailors aboard the USS Cole. And there wasn't a single American soldier in Iraq on September 11, 2001, when the terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people in the worst attack on our home since Pearl Harbor.

These acts are part of a grand strategy by the terrorists. Their stated objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of the Middle East so they can gain control of Iraq and use that country as a base from which to launch attacks against America, overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East and establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia.

Hear the words of the terrorists. In a letter to the terrorist leader [al-]Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader [Ayman al-]Zawahiri has outlined plans that will unfold in several stages.

These are his words: "Expel the Americans from Iraq. Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. Extend the jihad way through secular countries neighboring Iraq."

To achieve these goals, the terrorists are targeting innocent men, women and children. The enemy has only the ability to create chaos for the cameras with spectacular acts of violence.

They know they cannot defeat us militarily. So they are trying to break our will in the hopes of getting America to leave the battlefield early. And they cite Vietnam as a reason they can prevail.

[Al-]Zawahiri in his letter to [al-]Zarqawi wrote, "The aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy."

In the past, al Qaeda has said that American pullouts of Lebanon and Somalia have showed them that America is weak and could be made to run. And now the terrorists think they can make America run in Iraq.

There is only one way that terrorists can prevail, if we lose our nerve and leave before the job is done. And that is not going to happen on my watch.

Some in Washington are calling for a rapid and complete withdrawal of our forces in Iraq. They say that our presence there is the cause for instability in Iraq and that the answer is to set a deadline to withdraw.

I disagree. I've listened carefully to all the arguments. And there are four reasons why I believe that setting an artificial deadline would be a recipe for disaster.

First, setting an artificial deadline will send the wrong message to the Iraqis. As Iraqis are risking their lives for democracy, it would tell them that America's more interested in leaving than helping them succeed and put at risk all the democratic progress they have made over the past year.

Secondly, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the enemy. It would tell them that if they wait long enough America will cut and run. It would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder. It would embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks on America.

Third, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the region and the world. It would tell our friends and supporters that America is a weak and unreliable ally, and that when the going gets tough, America will retreat.

Finally, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the most important audience, our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve, and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain.

I make this pledge to the families of the fallen: We will carry on the fight, we will complete their mission, and we will win.

Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives. When the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy. When the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.

These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq. As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when victory is achieved, our troops will then come home with the honor they have earned.

One of the blessings of our free society is that we can debate these issues openly, even in a time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy. Some have launched irresponsible charges. They say that we act because of oil, that we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we misled the American people.

Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These charges are pure politics. They hurt the morale of our troops.

Whatever our differences in Washington, our men and women in uniform deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days, in bad, and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory.

Before this victory comes, we still have a lot of difficult work ahead. We made real progress in the last 2 1/2 years, and the terrorists see this progress, and they're determined to stop it. These enemies are not going to give up because of a successful election. They know that as democracy takes root in Iraq, their hateful ideology will suffer a devastating blow.

So we can expect violence to continue. We can also expect that the elections will be followed by days of uncertainty. We may not know for certain who has won the elections until the early part of January, and that's important for our citizens to understand. It's going to take awhile.

It's also going to take awhile for them to form a government. The work ahead will require patience of the Iraqi people and will require our patience as well, yet we must remember that a free Iraq is in our interests, because a free Iraq will be a beacon of hope, and as the Middle East grows in liberty, the American people will become safer and our nation will be more secure.
'The work ahead will also require continued sacrifice'

The work ahead will also require continued sacrifice. Yet, we can be confident, because history has shown the power of freedom to overcome tyranny. And we can be confident, because we have on our side the greatest force for freedom in human history, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

One of these men was a Marine lieutenant named Ryan McGlothlin from Lebanon, Virginia. Ryan was a bright young man who had everything going for him, and he always wanted to serve our nation. He was the valedictorian of his high school class. He graduated from William and Mary with near perfect grade averages, and he was on a full scholarship at Stanford where he was working toward a doctorate in chemistry.

Two years after the attacks of September 11, the young man who had the world at his feet came home from Stanford for a visit. He told his dad, I just don't feel like I'm doing something that matters. I want to serve my country. I want to protect our land from terrorists, so I joined the Marines.

When his father asked him if there was some other way to serve, Ryan replied that he felt a special obligation to step up because he had been given so much. Ryan didn't support me in the last election, but he supported our mission in Iraq, and he supported his fellow Marines. Ryan was killed last month fighting the terrorists near the Iraq/Syrian boarder.

In his pocket was a poem that Ryan had read at his high school graduation, and it represented the spirit of this fine Marine. The poem was called "Don't Quit."

In our fight to keep America free, we'll never quit. We've lost wonderful Americans like Ryan McGlothlin. We cherish the memory of each one. We pray the loved ones -- we pray for the loved ones they've left behind, and we count it a privilege to be citizens of a country they serve. We also honor them by acknowledging that their sacrifice has brought us to this moment, the birth of a free and sovereign Iraqi nation that will be a friend of the United States and a force for good in a troubled region of the world.

The story of freedom has just begin in the Middle East. And when the history of these days is written, it will tell how America once again defended its own freedom by using liberty to transform nations from bitter foes to strong allies. And history will say that this generation, like generations before, laid the foundation of peace for generations to come.

May God bless you all. Thank you.

Source

This was a GREAT speech. I am VERY impressed with Mr. Bush, one of, I am once again convinced, our nation's greatest Presidents. He has been steadfast and resolved--something even you anti-war liberals can acknowlege--and should be respected for that. He's also once again acting as the great leader he was during his first term. Put me in the Approving category of approval ratings.

-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

TrekkieMage
Office Junkie

Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding

Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:02 pm

Quote:

He needs to. Exactly. If he were truely in charge, he wouldln't need to go on such an defensive stance. Part of being president is persuading people, he obviously has failed to persuade the public and the press about the war, and as you have pointed out before the opinions of the war at home have a big impact on the was abroad.

As for the comments about the similarities: I know, and I agree with that. But the we were more like equals to England. They were taxing us, we didn't have representation. I know it's a really simplified and generalized statement. But we didn't have a dictator. We were essentially independant already. Aren't we trying to liberate the Iraqi's from their overcontrolling government? Big difference.

I know the French helped us. A lot. But they weren't occupying our territory helping us build our infrastructure and construct our government.

Constitution: Ours is based off of several different things - British common law, Roman government, and various ideas from the Enlightenment. Our founding fathers found an ingenious way to word it, the construction of the Constitution was a brilliant feat that managed to provide stability and allow for change at the same time. The Iraqi constitution is based off of our constitution (we are helping them write it after all) and their religious beliefs. Our constitution is the most mimicked constitution in the world, why wouldn't they be mimicking it?

Quote:

September 11 also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein.

Did he say anything about Saddam right after 9/11? I thought bin Laden was our main target?

Quote:

Our tactics continue to change, but our goal in Iraq has not changed: a free and democratic Iraq.

Wasn't our initial goal to stamp out terrorism? I'm talking right after 9/11, which is what he cited at the beginning of his speech.

Quote:

because only democracy can bring freedom and reconciliation to Iraq and peace to this troubled part of the world.

Um. Are we sure that's the only way? Didn't the system in the Ottoman Empire work pretty well (until it got too big)?

Quote:

And we believe that the people of the Middle East desire freedom as much as we do.

Yes, but do they want the same freedoms?

[quote]The spread of freedom to Iraq and the Middle East requires the same confidence and persistence. And it will lead to the same results.[/quot]
The Middle East and Japan aren't the same. Different culture. Japan has always borrowed and improved on other countries ideas. Middle East has a lot more pride and refusal to change than they do.

That's all I can do tonight, I'm about to fall asleep on the keyboard

And RM, we won't know if he was a truely great president for another 20-50 years

Display posts from previous:

stv-archives.com Forum Index -> World News

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures

Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com