Bush: Flip-Flopper Extraordinaire, or Just Plain Lying About Iraq?

Things have really gotten out of hand in terms of the spin the Bush administration is putting on Iraq for domestic consumption.

According to the AP, as of September 23rd,

President Bush said Thursday he would consider sending more troops if asked, but Iraq's interim leader firmly said they weren't needed.

Source: story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040924/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

But, according to Reuters, as of the same date,

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Thursday ruled out sending troops to help restore stability in Iraq, rebuffing pleas from the Iraqi interim government and the United States.

Source: story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20040923/ts_nm/iraq_pakistan_dc_5

It used to be you could easily find contradictions like this if you looked hard enough. But now it seems you don't even have to look- both these articles are relatively big headline stories.

So, does Allawi not have his ducks in a row? Is Bush telling the US one thing while the global community another? Was his visit a decietful pre-election dog-and-pony show? What gives?

-koji K.




[edit on 23-9-2004 by koji_K]

Maybe it's part of our plan to get more support from other Countries. The insurgents might be less likely to attack troops from Pakistan than troops from the U.S. Seems to me that it makes perfect sense that Iraq doesn't need more U.S. troops ... it needs more international troops.

Just my opinion.

Jemison

Originally posted by Jemison
Maybe it's part of our plan to get more support from other Countries. The insurgents might be less likely to attack troops from Pakistan than troops from the U.S. Seems to me that it makes perfect sense that Iraq doesn't need more U.S. troops ... it needs more international troops.

Just my opinion.

Jemison

It's possible, I thought this too, but there are two things that would suggest this is not the case. First, apparently Bush was not informed about the need for more international troops- something I find very hard to believe if other members in his administration were requesting them. Second, the White House's current strategy, and Allawi's also, is the "Iraqization" of the war- build up troops from within Iraq, and yet why would both the US and Iraqi government still be requesting more troops? (Not only from Pakistan, but from France and Germany also).


Before meeting with Allawi, Bush met in the Oval Office with Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East. Abizaid said Wednesday that more troops will be needed to secure Iraq's elections, but that he expected Iraqi or international troops could do the job. "I don't foresee a need for more American troops, but we can't discount it," Abizaid said.

Asked about Abizaid's comment, Bush said the general did not mention to him the need for more troops. "But if he were to say that, I'd listen to him," Bush said.

But Allawi said bluntly: "To have more troops, we don't need." He said Iraq needs to train more of its own troops because they ultimately will have to defend their country. Iraq now has 100,000 people in the police, national guard and army forces, Allawi said.

Source: story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040924/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

-koji K.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 23-9-2004 by koji_K]

The worst form of flip flopping I've seen from Bush recently has been his rejection of the recent intelligence report on Iraq. The same agencies were his bedrock of proof as to why we should invade Iraq in 2002. He hailed it as fool proof and evidence that Iraq was indeed a threat.

Now, the same agencies release a report on the dire situations that probably will occur in Iraq by 2005 and he outright ignores it in favor of a more rosy outlook to peddle to the American public. I just don't understand it at all. He just can't accept the facts and the American public sees it too though they still consider him a leader in the war on terror.

Their main reasoning seems to be that he makes a decision and sticks to it. Yet, every decision he has made has been wrong or poorly planned. The support he still receives boggles my mind. And if I have to listen to one more Republican attack Kerry for voting against defense expenditures that Tricky Dick opposed as well I'm going to scream.

Let's look at Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq:

First it was the threat of WMD's and quite possibly a mushroom cloud in our future.

Then it was his desire to aid terrorist groups.

Finally it was freedom for Iraqi's.

How much more of a flip flopper can one be. Everytime he gets proven horribly wrong he changes positions or at least emphasis of argument.



[edit on 103030p://444 by Weller]

Originally posted by koji_K

It's possible, I thought this too, but there are two things that would suggest this is not the case. First, apparently Bush was not informed about the need for more international troops- something I find very hard to believe if other members in his administration were requesting them. Second, the White House's current strategy, and Allawi's also, is the "Iraqization" of the war- build up troops from within Iraq, and yet why would both the US and Iraqi government still be requesting more troops? (Not only from Pakistan, but from France and Germany also).

.....................................

were is the confusion here....... it pretty clearly states that both men and the general in charge feel that in the long run iraq is fairly set in the number of troops catagory but that for the elections they would like to see more international troops not american.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by koji_K

It's possible, I thought this too, but there are two things that would suggest this is not the case. First, apparently Bush was not informed about the need for more international troops- something I find very hard to believe if other members in his administration were requesting them. Second, the White House's current strategy, and Allawi's also, is the "Iraqization" of the war- build up troops from within Iraq, and yet why would both the US and Iraqi government still be requesting more troops? (Not only from Pakistan, but from France and Germany also).

.....................................

were is the confusion here....... it pretty clearly states that both men and the general in charge feel that in the long run iraq is fairly set in the number of troops catagory but that for the elections they would like to see more international troops not american.

Gen. Abizaid says, more international troops are needed to secure the elections. These troops are not forthcoming. So why would there not be a resultant need for US troops? These would not be "long haul" troops, as you say, but are needed specifically for the elections, so why does their nationality matter? If they were for show, to lend legitimacy to the elections, then surely Abizaid would say so.

And Allawi's contradictory statement and action still make no sense.

-koji K.

Iraq needs the world to send special forces to hunt down the insurgents while the main bulk of US/british begin the much promsied reconstrucation.
Of course Bush is painting a rosey picture of Iraq to the americans he needs there vote. Of course if he gave the american public the true picture of Iraq he wouldnt stand a chance of re-election .

As predicted:

story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20041009/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld

-koji K.