President Bush Takes the Blame for the War in Iraq -- Finally
Del Williams
December 14, 2005
It has taken four long years and the lives of over 2000 servicemen before President Bush has said, "I am responsible." Somehow the image of people rolling over in their graves and pigs flying comes to mind; but I am a cynic.
The President was giving his fourth and final speech to make yet another case for our continuing presence in Iraq. He said, "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."
If President Bush knows that some of the intelligence that he used to go to war was wrong why, then, would he continue to make points arguing for a continuance of the war? Is it arrogance, stubbornness, or downright pride? It becomes clear why pride is considered by God to be one of the seven deadly sins.
So, with this new found revelation on the President’s part, now what? My guess is he will continue as before. America is too invested in the war to turn back now. We have no choice but to “stay the course” and try to clean up the mess we helped to create.
I will say that Iraq is better without Saddam Hussein; but how do you choose which dictator to overthrow? No one has sent any ships to Cuba lately. African nations don't exist on our military maps, so that continent is overlooked when genocide takes place. What is the deciding factor for America’s intervention? The answer is how intervention will benefit us. To be sure, oil has more value than diamonds. President Bush differs from that view. For example, he has stated, "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."
President Bush went on to say that after September 11, 2001, "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."
What does this all mean? Nothing if you are one of the terrorists who actually hit the USA. We have yet to realize a real resolution to this war. Our involvement in Iraq means nothing if the leadership in North Korea continues to brag about the nuclear weapons they have -- and receive no punishment.
Did America pick on a dictator they knew they could beat instead of a dictator who might be just as capable as we are in a war? Is this a case of bait-and-switch? One country served up the terrorists, but we go after another country for what they may have.
Well, thank you Mr. President for finally admitting to us that the information you gave to the United Nations and the American people was full of holes (lies). But will your acknowledgement hurry up and end this war? Aren’t the people of Iraq demonstrating their resolve for democracy when they say they don't want us there? Then you have it: “Mission Accomplished.”
The President was giving his fourth and final speech to make yet another case for our continuing presence in Iraq. He said, "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."
If President Bush knows that some of the intelligence that he used to go to war was wrong why, then, would he continue to make points arguing for a continuance of the war? Is it arrogance, stubbornness, or downright pride? It becomes clear why pride is considered by God to be one of the seven deadly sins.
So, with this new found revelation on the President’s part, now what? My guess is he will continue as before. America is too invested in the war to turn back now. We have no choice but to “stay the course” and try to clean up the mess we helped to create.
I will say that Iraq is better without Saddam Hussein; but how do you choose which dictator to overthrow? No one has sent any ships to Cuba lately. African nations don't exist on our military maps, so that continent is overlooked when genocide takes place. What is the deciding factor for America’s intervention? The answer is how intervention will benefit us. To be sure, oil has more value than diamonds. President Bush differs from that view. For example, he has stated, "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."
President Bush went on to say that after September 11, 2001, "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."
What does this all mean? Nothing if you are one of the terrorists who actually hit the USA. We have yet to realize a real resolution to this war. Our involvement in Iraq means nothing if the leadership in North Korea continues to brag about the nuclear weapons they have -- and receive no punishment.
Did America pick on a dictator they knew they could beat instead of a dictator who might be just as capable as we are in a war? Is this a case of bait-and-switch? One country served up the terrorists, but we go after another country for what they may have.
Well, thank you Mr. President for finally admitting to us that the information you gave to the United Nations and the American people was full of holes (lies). But will your acknowledgement hurry up and end this war? Aren’t the people of Iraq demonstrating their resolve for democracy when they say they don't want us there? Then you have it: “Mission Accomplished.”
Print
Email
