Bush finally admits responsibility for going to war (in part) in Iraq on the basis of false intelligence regarding WMD. He had this to say, speaking at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a nonpartisan forum for the study of world affairs.
Bush has repeatedly noted that the decision to go to war was his responsibility. And he has acknowledged for more than a year that most of the intelligence behind the claims of Saddam’s weapons programs turned out to be faulty. But he has never linked the two so clearly and so personally. The News & Observer
(emphasis mine)
But he still remains defensive about his decision, citing the threat that Saddam supposedly represented to the US. Not the imminent threat, mind you, just the garden variety. By being there and being Saddam.
Still he whines. Still he behaves like a grade-schooler, pointing the finger, trying to shift the focus from his own admission. . .”Well, they did it too!” he snarls.
He said foreign intelligence agencies – including several for governments who didn’t back his decision to invade – also believed before the war that Saddam Hussein possessed them.
He just doesn’t get it! Those other countries didn’t go to war over their suspicions. And, duh!, surely WMD would be just as great a threat to them (probably Europe) as us. If not bigger.
And like the late lamented Tookie Williams, he expressed neither regret nor remorse for his “crime,” hauling out tired and much beaten dead horse reasons for going to war. Such as: Iraqi violations of a no-fly zone in its airspace, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait a decade earlier, and Iraq’s defiance of United Nations resolutions.
Gee, doesn’t that list just shout out IMMINENT! THREAT! to the USA!
In fact, it’s not by any stretch of the imagination justifiable war that this country has sacrificed more than 2000 men and women in the military for. No, it’s only to remove Saddam as head of state. And it may be because Bush believed that Saddam intended to start up WMD activities again. The proverbial road to the present hell in Iraq is paved with Saddam’s intentions.
Since November’s speech at the Naval Academy, in which he signaled the beginning of his culpability to the listening audience, the pattern of speeches
has included descriptions of fixes for early mistakes and sober assessments of remaining challenges.
The biggest mistake he alluded to at the Naval Academy was going to war with the military Rumsfeld wanted, not the military this Nation has.
If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them. For example, we’ve increased our force levels in Iraq to 160,000, up from 137,000, in preparation for the December elections.
Those increases in troop strength do not sound like a plan for winding down our involvement in Iraq to me. They don’t indicate to me that the mission has been accomplished, rather it sounds more like the mission is bogged down. Bush intractably clings to the mission, the course, the pursuit of freedom for Iraqis — whatever he calls it. He dismisses making plans for an end game, characterizing timetables for troop withdrawl as artifical.
Guess that means the US remains at war until he or some other president declares victory. If it’s Bush, one wants to know how does he define “victory”? It appears he defines it by objectives, which he prefers over timetables. Fair enough.
Last November it was like this:
Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation. Naval Academy speech
and just yesterday it was like this:
“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,” he said. “These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq.” THe News & Observer
Bingo! At least that’s clear and unchanging. But, on examination, the three objectives are a formula for eternal involvement in Iraq. And that’s anyone’s definition of quagmire. On further examination those objectives are unrelated to the tired reasons that Bush now clings to for going to war in the first place. Remember Iraqi violations of a no-fly zone in its airspace, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait a decade earlier, and Iraq’s defiance of United Nations resolutions?
If victory were tied to those reasons as objectives and goals to achieve in order to declare mission accomplished, then the war would be over as I type! Heck, one of them had been accomplished prior to the current Bush war.
Sadly, knowing this president, one can only conclude that if and when Bush’s three current objectives come close to being achieved, why he’ll continue to stay the course. In yet another different direction.
