Thursday, September 13, 2007

Through the Years, Bush on Iraq

The following is a small sampling of the lowlights of our President's words on Iraq:

President Bush on October 7, 2002:

“Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.” (per whitehouse.gov)

May 1, 2003 (aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln):

“Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country…. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.” (CNN)

May 24, 2004:

“There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom: We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government; help establish security; continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure; encourage more international support; and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.” (Washington Post)

November 30, 2005:

"Our strategy in Iraq has three elements. On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies, so we're helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis. We're working with the Iraqis to help them engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq -- and to marginalize those who never will. On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.” (whitehouse.gov)

March 29, 2006:

“I know some in our country disagree with my decision to liberate Iraq. Whatever one thought about the decision to remove Saddam from power, I hope we should all agree that pulling our troops out prematurely would be a disaster. If we were to let the terrorists drive us out of Iraq, we would signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve and tighten their repressive grip. The global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever. For the security of our citizens and the peace of the world, we will not turn the future of Iraq over to the followers of a failed dictator, or to evil men like bin Laden and Zarqawi.
America will leave Iraq, but we will not retreat from Iraq. We will leave because Iraqi forces have gained in strength, not because America's will has weakened. We will complete the mission in Iraq because the security of the American people is linked to the success in Iraq.

We're pursuing a clear strategy for victory. Victory requires an integrated strategy: political, economic and security. These three elements depend on and reinforce one another. By working with Iraqi leaders to build the foundations of a strong democracy, we will ensure they have the popular support they need to defeat the terrorists. By going after the terrorists, coalition and Iraqi forces are creating the conditions that allow the Iraqi people to begin rebuilding their lives and their country. By helping Iraqis with economic reconstruction, we're giving every citizen a real stake in the success of a free Iraq. And as all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer nothing but death and destruction, are becoming isolated from the population.” (whitehouse.gov)

January 11, 2007, on announcing an extra 20,000 troops that turned into 30,000:

“Linking the fight in Iraq with the greater war on terror, President Bush told the nation there is "no magic formula for success in Iraq" but that failure there "would be a disaster for the United States."

Speaking from the White House Wednesday night as about 50 protesters gathered outside, Bush said he will increase American forces by more than 20,000, the vast majority of them coming from "five brigades [that] will be deployed to Baghdad."

Bush recognized that the progress of the war is "unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me," adding, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

The additional troops will work alongside Iraqi units.

"Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs." (CNN)

September 13, 2007, 9:00 p.m.:

You will hear some version of “be patient,” coupled with a glowing report of “conditions on the ground” not reported by the national media and a “plan” with three or four “strategic” parts designed to achieve our most recent vaguely stated goals and to keep us from fighting terrorists “over here.” (RTW News Service – predicting the news for going on a year now, so you don’t have to.)

2 comments:

Life Hiker said...

My head hurts after reading this post, even though I remember all these empty-headed "plans".

For me, the moment of truth came from Petraeus this week. When asked about the his proposed troop levels, he said they are necessary "to carry out the mission I am tasked with", or something close to that.

It seems to me that the mission is to occupy Iraq as long as possible, regardless of what the Iraqis would like us to do. Nobody is talking about "winning" any more, whatever that is.

Dave said...

When reading about the hearings, I tried to find out just what mission he was tasked with. I may have missed it, but I didn't hear anything about it. I also didn't hear a Senator or a Representative ask him or Crocker "what do you want to accomplish and how is what you plan to do calculated to lead to that result?

I figure we'll hear all that in about twenty minutes?