Is Bush's Veto and War Rhetoric Justified?

  • News
  • Thread starter turbo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Track
In summary: Similarly, in this case, Bush is invoking 9/11 to suggest that we need to install a security fence to protect America from future terrorist attacks.
  • #1
turbo
Gold Member
3,165
56
Bush, confident of enough votes to sustain his veto, was unambiguous in his response. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," he told reporters in the Oval Office as he met with his top Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus.
OK, is any timetable for withdrawal "artificial" if it is not dreamed up by Rove and Cheney? Is any timetable "artificial" if it does not fit the needs of the oil companies? Next, Bush is a "Washington politician" who has fired and/or ruined the careers of any senior military officers who refused to suck up to him. Who "supports our troops" better? Bush, or the duly-elected representatives of their states and districts in Congress who have been told "stop this war and bring our young people back home"? I was a news junkie in college and I found it hard to watch Nixon's tortured lies about the war and about Watergate - Bush is MUCH worse. I force myself to listen, but it is torture, as he constantly lies and twists what little is left that contains truth. When he is asked about the war in Iraq and he says "we have to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here" I have to plead with myself not to shoot my TV. Not a single person involved with 9-11 was from Iraq, and Saddam hated/feared religious fundamentalists and would have no truck with Bin Ladin, leaving only the Sunnis from Saudi Arabia and Eqypt to blame for the WTC and Pentagon. Why did Bush ground all US flights and arrange VIP exit flights for all members of the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladins? Something doesn't smell right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Maybe artificial means that there is not good reason for it. Good being subjective. To me, it's not a good idea to leave and the people supporting are just doing it to be able to get kudos from the public. The only way I would support it if someone gave me a good reason to believe that things wouldn't become a whole lot worse by leaving.

IMO, the best option is to stay until someone figures out how to fix the situation. Or the Iraqi civilians vote for us to leave by a large majority (something suggested by Astronuc).
 
  • #3
Like what's new, Bush's footprint on history will be decided by the terms and conditions of withdrawal. He's unchecked either by checks and balances or his willingness to having erred in the first palce, or anywhere between than and now. If he were a lousy plumber, you'd seek a new one. The inly plumbing talent he has shown so far is opening uo on hydrants of $$ with insufficient accounting, and this because pipes groaned from time to time.
 
  • #4
Oh, there's no question that things are going to get worse when we leave. At this point, many people (myself included) already believe that we've lost, and therefore there's no point in staying. The war's a sunk cost, so we have to take our assets and get out of there.

On a side note, did Bush ever veto the funding bill that would set a fixed deadline for withdrawal, or is it still sitting on his desk? Since the Don Imus and Va. Tech incidents, I haven't heard anything about it.
 
  • #5
Manchot said:
did Bush ever veto the funding bill that would set a fixed deadline for withdrawal, or is it still sitting on his desk?

It hasn't even reached his desk. Congress hasn't passed it yet, but probably will in the next few days.
 
  • #6
Turbo-1, many others have shared your ambition in similar remarks made about the Saddam Hussein-9/11 link. I remember having read pieces decrying how 70-odd percent of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for those attacks.

I also know that it can be empowering to have information that refutes what most people think.

But did George Bush ever say that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

This site illustrates my confusion on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

There are many quotes about how Iraq was hostile toward the international community, how Saddam Hussein gleefully celebrated the 9/11 attacks, and how the terrorist threat responsible for 9/11 came from the same region as Iraq, but no quote included the claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks.

What I see is rhetoric depicting "what if" scenarios, cast against the backdrop of 9/11.

If, for instance, a stray dog tore up your garden, a fence builder might come to your door and say, "Your neighbour has a dog, so you should have me build a fence on that side of your property." The fence builder is evoking the memory of the stray dog, but he is not blaming your neighbour's dog for tearing up the garden.

That is the kind of rhetoric I see in the quotes referenced by the BBC article. Now, there may have been some underlying objective in using that rhetoric, but that is another subject entirely. As far as this subject is concerned, I don't think that one can reasonably conclude that Bush was linking Hussein to 9/11.
 
  • #7
Futobingoro said:
Turbo-1, many others have shared your ambition in similar remarks made about the Saddam Hussein-9/11 link. I remember having read pieces decrying how 70-odd percent of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for those attacks.

I also know that it can be empowering to have information that refutes what most people think.

But did George Bush ever say that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

This site illustrates my confusion on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

There are many quotes about how Iraq was hostile toward the international community, how Saddam Hussein gleefully celebrated the 9/11 attacks, and how the terrorist threat responsible for 9/11 came from the same region as Iraq, but no quote included the claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks.

What I see is rhetoric depicting "what if" scenarios, cast against the backdrop of 9/11.

If, for instance, a stray dog tore up your garden, a fence builder might come to your door and say, "Your neighbour has a dog, so you should have me build a fence on that side of your property." The fence builder is evoking the memory of the stray dog, but he is not blaming your neighbour's dog for tearing up the garden.

That is the kind of rhetoric I see in the quotes referenced by the BBC article. Now, there may have been some underlying objective in using that rhetoric, but that is another subject entirely. As far as this subject is concerned, I don't think that one can reasonably conclude that Bush was linking Hussein to 9/11.

I am pretty sure he never made the link. The most that has been said is that he supported the attacks, harbored members of Al-Qaida, etc. I can tell you though that it won't matter to those who want to impeach him.
 
  • #8
GTdan said:
IMO, the best option is to stay until someone figures out how to fix the situation. Or the Iraqi civilians vote for us to leave by a large majority (something suggested by Astronuc).

surly this can not go on for ever, not without a sign that the occupation is doing something good and not just delaying something bad from happening. should the occupation last another 5 years? 10? 30? what happens if america can no longer afford the war and the troops withdraw, only to allow iraq to sink into violence just the same?

i hope the american people consider the war in iraq when considering the next candidates for invasion (for america there will always be more another nation on deck for invasion).
 
  • #9
GTdan said:
I am pretty sure he never made the link. The most that has been said is that he supported the attacks, harbored members of Al-Qaida, etc. I can tell you though that it won't matter to those who want to impeach him.

So the fact that he didn't support the attacks or harbor members of al-quida makes no difference to Bush supporters. Nor does the fact that the admin clearly led the American people to believe that Saddam was involved. Andwhoops, no wmds either, but because of their incredible arrogance, the Bush team did leave the amories wide open which is what supplied the people shooting at Americans with weapons.

A lie, intentional deception...a lie by any other name is still a lie. And a lie of this magnitude is a war crime.

from the March 14, 2003 edition

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago. [continued]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

...As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq. [continued]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Anyone who can't see that they were willfully deceived is refusing to look. And even then, I fail to understand how anyone could find acceptable Bush's position: Oh golly gee, I didn't mean to invade and destroy an entire country, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, kill thousand of Americans and leave tens of thousand more crippled or seriously injured, or to leave the US more vulnerable than any time since the vietnam war during a alleged war on terror, and spend a half trillion dollars, for nothing.

Of course while defending Iraqi freedoms he was squandering ours on illegal wire tapping schemes while thumbing his nose at the Geneva Conventions. Also, since 911, approximately 3,000,000 illegal immigrants who could be anyone [like terrorists] have crossed the US-Mexican border, but Bush wants to make them citizens. And did you hear about him trying to give control of our ports to a ME country?

He is not on our side.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
The same reasons and justifications were trotted out to continue the war in Vietnam only back then the 'global menace' was communism.

Well in the end the world and Vietnam survived American withdrawal so why wouldn't Iraq? Perhaps Bush's stance will soften once the Iraqi gov't ratifies the oil contracts.
 
  • #11
Futobingoro said:
That is the kind of rhetoric I see in the quotes referenced by the BBC article. Now, there may have been some underlying objective in using that rhetoric, but that is another subject entirely. As far as this subject is concerned, I don't think that one can reasonably conclude that Bush was linking Hussein to 9/11.
A couple of weeks ago, Cheney insisted once again that Saddam had ties to Al Qaida and harbored them in Iraq. That is a re-assertion of the same absolutely unfounded claims that allow the hawks and their ditto-heads to claim that the war on the Iragi people is necessary for US security.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking said:
Nor does the fact that the admin clearly led the American people to believe that Saddam was involved.
Could you produce a quote of a statement to that effect?
Ivan Seeking said:
So the fact that he didn't support the attacks or harbor members of al-quida makes no difference to Bush supporters.
I am willing to talk about the Bush administration's claims of Iraq/Al-Qaeda ties in another thread, but for now I would like to focus on the Saddam Hussein-9/11 link supposedly made by the Bush administration.

As I said before, it appears that Bush evoked the memory of 9/11 to claim that invading Iraq would be a way of ensuring that events of that magnitude would not reoccur:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
You can say what you want about subliminal messages, but an attentive reader/listener does not take away the Hussein-9/11 link from the speeches in question. It is my opinion that a good portion of the quoted 70 percent consists of people who can't point out Iraq or Afghanistan on a map, and who are perhaps more likely to make the 9/11 connection.
 

Related to Is Bush's Veto and War Rhetoric Justified?

1. What is the significance of keeping track of Bush?

Keeping track of Bush refers to monitoring and documenting the actions and decisions made by former United States President, George W. Bush. This is often done to assess the impact of his policies and to hold him accountable for his actions while in office.

2. Who is responsible for keeping track of Bush?

There is no specific person or organization responsible for keeping track of Bush. It is a collective effort by journalists, political analysts, and historians to document and analyze his presidency.

3. What kind of information is typically recorded when keeping track of Bush?

When keeping track of Bush, information such as his speeches, executive orders, policies, and decisions are usually recorded. This also includes any controversies, scandals, and major events that occurred during his presidency.

4. How is keeping track of Bush relevant today?

Keeping track of Bush is still relevant today as his presidency had a significant impact on the United States and the world. Understanding his decisions and policies can provide insights into current political issues and policymaking. Additionally, it can serve as a reference for future presidents and policymakers.

5. Is there a comprehensive record of Bush's presidency?

Yes, there are several comprehensive records of Bush's presidency available, including official government documents and independent research by historians and political scientists. However, it is important to note that these records may have different perspectives and biases, so it is important to consult multiple sources when researching Bush's presidency.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
96
Views
11K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
98
Views
14K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
65
Views
7K
Back
Top