It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Bush Views His Re-election as Justification for War in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
In an interview by The Washington Post, President Bush stated that his election to a second term was an "accountability moment." The question was regarding the perceived mistakes made by the Bush Administration in pre and post war Iraq and the lack of people being held responsible. The President goes on to express the difficulty in establishing a new system and intentions to withdraw troops when their mission is successful.
 



washingtonpost.com (Free Membership Required)
Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy
No U.S. Troop Withdrawal Date Is Set

By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page A01

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Bush doesn't answer the question - see the supporting Link for the full transcript of the interview. He essentially stumbles over how difficult it is to establish a democracy in a newly free state and then tries to compare it with our early history! All the mistakes that were made are being disregarded simply because he was re-elected in a still very controversial election! The entire interview itself is little more than a Public Relations statement; there is even a part where Bush had to ask whether or not he had met with Democrats or Republicans regarding Privatization! See page 5....
I have no faith in our current president and am very sorry to see an exercise in vague rhetoric pass for a presidential answer for issues that directly impact the lives of many people. I'm afraid this interview will not be critically read and forgotten when the next human interest piece comes along......Brainwashed America indeed.

Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com









[edit on 16-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Bush wasn't reelected because of Iraq; he was releceted in spite of it by the Fundamental Christian vote who thought he was more in tune with them on same sex marriage, stem cell research and abortion. A con really as he has no plans to change the abortion laws, he allows private research into stem cells and what has same sex marriage got to do with anyone other than the two people getting married? So they are non-issues that got him reelected.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Bush re-election not only was by the some misguided people but also by the same people that willingly are paying 45 million dollars in donation to financed his inauguration extravaganza our country don't belong to the people belong to the elite.

The budget for the defense department means big business to his business associates in the higher places.

War means deficit and death to our troops and struggle with in our country, but to the people behind the power means bit profits at the expenses to the American citizens.

Wake up American denied ignorance. The Carlyle group are making a profit from our death.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
martian_tourist: You're right, he was re-elected in spite of the war. Quite disturbing isn't it?


marge6043: I agree that this country, nay the world belongs to the elite. But for all the knowledge in the world, regarding how we are getting railroaded, what are/can we do about it? The point of the article submission was to illustrate how out of the loop the American Public is. Bush doesn't really answer any of his questions! It's an easy trick to do in an "open state", especially when you have White House personnel looking over your shoulder. I don't think it's just Bush either, I just happened to reach this epiphany during his administration(I was too young even to recall Bush Sr.). The American Public has no say in any thing and the face of the ruling class has no qualms with lying to us day in and day out. We've discussed this in other threads, we have example after example. All we're proving is that they can get away with it.....


[edit on 16-1-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Interviews with Bush could be loosely categorized as "news".

A few will believe that the "election" is some mandate for the criminal gang to continue to put people at risk in Iraq.

A greater few might even believe that the 2004 election yielded the American people's choice of "president".

Others will see through the sham that is Bush and the US electoral system.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Interviews with Bush could be loosely categorized as "news".

A few will believe that the "election" is some mandate for the criminal gang to continue to put people at risk in Iraq.

A greater few might even believe that the 2004 election yielded the American people's choice of "president".

Others will see through the sham that is Bush and the US electoral system.



Not really.....you should rather say that "a few would believe that the election was a sham".....

Whenever you get over half of a population "in one state" to go to the streets to protest for what you call sham elections, then you can say that only a few in that state believe it was not a sham.... otherwise, all you are doing is once more "blowing some steam" like you always do, but i hardly see it as proof of anything....your blowing steam of course.



[edit on 16-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Justification for the war in Iraq???

Bush was re-elected because he used the fear of 9-11 to get people to vote for him.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by martian_tourist
Bush wasn't reelected because of Iraq; he was releceted in spite of it by the Fundamental Christian vote who thought he was more in tune with them on same sex marriage, stem cell research and abortion. A con really as he has no plans to change the abortion laws, he allows private research into stem cells and what has same sex marriage got to do with anyone other than the two people getting married? So they are non-issues that got him reelected.


And you know this for certain because you took the time to ask every person who voted why they voted for Bush...

We were attacked by Islamic extremists... which can be found all over the middle east, these islamic extremists have said what their plans are for a long time.... But of course, you know for certain that most Americans who voted for Bush did not have this in mind...that we were attacked in 9/11 and Islamic extremists want to keep attacking us...they have for a long time....even before this war or 9/11....



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by elderban
Justification for the war in Iraq???

Bush was re-elected because he used the fear of 9-11 to get people to vote for him.


I guess fear is what killed the people in 9/11....


Would you rather nothing was done like Clinton did in the 90s after we were attacked several times including the WTC in 1993?...

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Thank goodness for Mr. Bush. Our savior sent from above.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


Would you rather nothing was done like Clinton did in the 90s after we were attacked several times including the WTC in 1993?...

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Muaddib]


What are you talking about? You have no idea what you are talking about. Do a search on the one eyed shiek and see where he is spending his days. In case you dont know what his affiliation with in all this is, he is the one who masterminded the first WTC bombings that just took out the basement. Well, he happens to be spending MUCH time alone in solitary confinement. Clinton caught and imprisoned the ones responsible for this bombing, unlike Bush.
Get your facts straight.

[edit on 1/16/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I feel that under the Re-Election justification not only Mr. Bush will find his redemption about Iraq mess, but who is to say that he will think himself Omnipotent and and decides to keep on his who knows agenda of Saviour.

Already under his Re-Elections views he does not hold any of his appointees responsible for any bad results in Iraq, so how much more can he be able to get away with at the expenses of the people of this country? or our country itself.

I wonder.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Interviews with Bush could be loosely categorized as "news".



But the news here is actully what they won't put in a headline - that the American people will re-elect an official even though said official is plagued with dicrepancies throughout his administration. The news is that said discrepancies are justified by a controversial election and as such won't be given any more thought. The news is that we are letting our leader answer for his mistakes by using generalities and continued ideological appealings. That's the news and you won't see it better illustrated than in an interview that is designed to be a public relations step in an ongoing damage control. Read between the lines.....that is where the news resides.....



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
but who is to say that he will think himself Omnipotent and and decides to keep on his who knows agenda of Saviour.


I think he already thinks this. According to him, he doesnt have to answer to anyone anyway. The only person that doesnt have a higher authority IS the higher authority. So, if he believes he is the higher authority, is it really that far of a strech to say he has a God complex?



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

What are you talking about? You have no idea what you are talking about. Do a search on the one eyed shiek and see where he is spending his days. In case you dont know what his affiliation with in all this is, he is the one who masterminded the first WTC bombings that just took out the basement. Well, he happens to be spending MUCH time alone in solitary confinement. Clinton caught and imprisoned the ones responsible for this bombing, unlike Bush.
Get your facts straight.


Get my facts straight?.....obviously you are not taking in consideration that 9/11 happened, and it was planned while Clinton was in office.... One single man was the mastermind for trying to blow the wtc....ya, and the Cole bombing was also the same one man...and every other attack under Clinton's command...yet what did Clinton do?...he bombed by mistake the Chinese embassy, which led to the leaking of military information to the Chinese, and he bombed a few empty buildings and supposedly a mosque while Arabs were praying.

Yeah...get your facts straight kidfinger...

Clinton also hid under the rug the connection of the OKC bombing with the islamic extremists.... Wasn't there a video where another man was also seen and was part of the plot for the bombing of the OKC building, but that tape dissapeared?.... Here is a link and an excerpt to this information.


The evidence that the Oklahoma City bombing involved a larger conspiracy, one with Middle Eastern connections, is compelling. And the trail begins with that mysterious pickup.

The week after the bombing, Jayna Davis, a veteran Oklahoma City reporter at KFOR-TV, got a tip, which began her investigation of a local property management company. Dr. Samir Khalil owns Samara Properties, and several former employees told Davis they had seen a pickup, matching the APB's description, at the office.


Excerpted from.
www.glennbeck.com...

Yet that link was buried by the Clinton administration, since they didn't want to effectively deal with terrorists....

www.glennbeck.com...

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Muadib,

You need to learn to comprehind what other people say. I NEVER disputed ANYTHING about 9-11. I disputed what you said about Clinton not doing anything about the original bombing of the WTC. You said he did nothing about it, yet he did. This makes what you said either a lie, or ignorant. Ignorant meaning you dont know what happened. Yes, get your facts straight.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Muadib,

You need to learn to comprehind what other people say. I NEVER disputed ANYTHING about 9-11.
...................


Would you read again what i said.... i remember clearly that I said after we were attacked several times including at the wtc in 1993....and yes Clinton did nothing. Catching one man out of a group of people that planned for something like this is next to nothing....

Do get your facts straight Kidfinger....



[edit on 16-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
All right children, no arguing at the table.....you both have valid points, but I think it's more accurate to say that both Bush and Clinton were inadequate.....look at the overall trend. Clinton does too little, Bush Jr. does too much, all through the chaotic mess is one constant fact: we were lied to. Clinton lied, and Bush lied. We seem to be acclimating to the fact that scandal after scandal will occur and our response remains the same. We as a nation seem to ingest the new information, make some public display of empathy and get on with our lives......it's is more or less an automatic response now.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Edit: Nevermind.....

[edit on 1/16/05 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Muadib,

Please, just stop. You are not even hearing me. I was refering to the 1993 WTC bombing in which you said Clinton did nothing about. I ALSO said I did NOT refute what you said about 9-11. Yes, get your facts straight. Dont get them from the Oklahoma Bombing consperacy site
The ring leader of the first WTC bombing was caught, tried, and convicted on Clintons watch. You consistantly refuse to address this little BLARING fact that you say never happened. So pleas, by all means, get your facts straight.

I was talking about WTC 1993. I WAS NOT discussing 9-11, OR the Oklahoma city bombing, which, BTW, WAS just a plot hatched by Mcveigh and Nichols. They had admitted to as much


[edit on 1/16/05 by Kidfinger]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join