Why did Bush first say he is going after WMDs in Iraq, then said it was regime change and now it's democracy?

Question

Palenstinians voted recently in a democractic election (monitored by EU) and America refuses to support 'democracy'

Answer 1

Well. look at his statements, and how they tend to change when light is shed on the unlikelihood of their veracity. It's almost like a con-man trying to tailor his answers to fit the new questions.
Seriously though, you talk about at least four different issues:

• WMDs and the case for the war with Iraq;

Everyone but bush (to his discredit) has admitted that clearly, more information was needed to justify going to war. Moreover, it was the clear politicization of intelligence (and probably more than a bit of corporate interest) that led the White House to be concerned with the Mideast growing unstable and interrupting the flow of oil from the region. By taking the initiative of utilizing the troops already in place in the region, he made the critical error of not arranging to have larger, more powerful countries back his play. An argument has been made that he chose to make America the powerful lead partner in this war/venture so as to ensure that America had primary superpower access to Iraq's oil supplies (and not have to quibble with Russia or China). A fairly reasonable course of action, if you are practicing realpolitik (like Kissinger and Rumsfeld do)...and consider the lives spent protecting oil interests a bargain.

• Regime Change;

Well, let's face it: Saddam was a pretty icky man, and his two sons were strong candidates for Dick of the Week when they eventually assumed the reins of power from dear old Dad. That being said, it should be important to note that the bush Administration does not intend to allow either an Islamic fundamentalist or America-unfriendly government. Watch and see if I have not foretold the future here...

• Democracy int he Mideast; and

There is no saying that our flavor of Democracy is something that should be instituted over there. we have spend some time fine-tuning it so it (debateably) works forus. The folk in that region - well, in that part of the world, I think - are used to having their fortunes dictated to them at the point of a gun. Not much freedome there, black or white. No shades of gray, as democracy is (and to my reckoning SHOULD be).
Asking them to adopt a government like ours is like throwing a 6-year old into shark-infested waters and expecting them to not only learn to swim, but to eat the sharks as well. Democracy is truly brain-bending work..maybe a bit out of the reach for folks trying to find a way to keep the lights on and the bullets out of the guns. they need time, not someone looking over their shoulders all the time telling what they should be doing.
What might work better for these sorts of places is a theocratic (meaning religious-based) republic set into place. A moderate government will almost always lead to eventual democracy, but it allows the government to control the rate at which these freedoms are introduced. so as to acclimate the citizenry to them gradually.

• the viability of the democratic process in Palestine.

It is viable, but it's going to take a long time. Old wounds held for over 60 years (and not millenia, as some uneducated cretins would have you think) do not heal overnight, or even in a single generation.
Grace is required on all four sides (the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Islamic support arising from nation-states and NGOs, and the capital-driven remainder), and patience as well.
If Hamas wants to be taken seriously, it cannot - I repeat CANNOT - condone violence with the end product being the destruction of the Israeli state. Advocating the erasure of another people's society is not a good way to get that society of people to help mend fences and let go of old grudges. Countries - and people too - are a lot alike in that way.

So that was the long answer to your question. the short answer is as follows: Bush changes the purpose of why we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq because he's searching for a way to maintain/manipulate the American people's focus on HIS goals, when it should actually be a freely-informed (and not tainted by media-hacks like Rove, O'Reilly or Hannity) telling him how they want the country directed.
The other short answer is that America would set a bad precedent by recognizing a country that advocates in its constitution (that place where rights freedoms are supposed to be spelled out) the utter annihilation of another people. That doesn't indicate intelligence or maturity, it just shows hate, and hate does not mix well with business or peaceful exchange of ideas.

Answer 2

You are simplifying things way too much. The answer is that it was always regime change. Issues such as WMDs, terrorism, and democracy were added into the mix to make the war palatable for the public.

Your secondary point is also way too simplistic. The administration made a huge point about honoring the democratic election in the Palestinian Authority. Opposing a government that so radically opposes our aims in the mid east is only to expected, no matter how that government has obtained it's authority.

I realize that the PA is not technically a government of a sovereign nation, but since it serves as such in practice, I will still use the term.

Answer 3

The original intent (to get rid of WMD's) was based upon intelligence that turned out to be wrong. By the time the president found this out, we were already in Iraq and Saddaam was gone. The information about the false intelligence was classified at that time.

The info was false, but we were already there. The president rightly believed that it was our duty to help the Iraqi people rebuild their nation and form a new democratic government. That is what we are still working on. It is happening rather quickly actually. It took 5 years before the first democratic elections were held in Japan after WWII, and it took over 20 years in West Germany. In those countries there were no organized resistance movements, and no insurgents who blew up cars in civilian filled markets to contend with either.

Answer 4

I completely agree with you that, prior to 2003, the general consensus was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What makes George Bush different than ALL the Democrat commentators on your list is: (1) Only Bush made the argument that Iraq threatened the US with its weapons. (2) Only Bush advocated abandoning the existing international consensus strategy, and choosing war instead. (3) Only Bush faultily linked the actions of Iraq to the war on Islamic terrorism. Democrats understood the limits of the reliability of the WMD claims, and did not make these colossal mistakes in judgment.

Answer 5

President Bush acted on the information he had regarding WMD. The fact that such weapons have not been found in Iraq does not mean that he was not making them. They were very likely exported to Syria during the six-month buildup of U.S. forces. If you were Saddam, wouldn't you have done that?

Although the mainstream media are trying very hard to convince us otherwise, the outcome of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has been very positive for the 27,000,000 people of Iraq.

Answer 6

Man, Michael Moore sure did a number on you people. Funny how someones hate and a little sad background music can brainwash a simple mind.
Your other question about the cleaner environment must have come from watching the laughable film by Gore. What a loser.

Answer 7

Because he was lying!!

Now they are even changing the democracy crap!! Both Bush and Rice said last week we went "for the attempt" to start democracy, but don't expect it!!

Answer 8

Bush is a constant liar,who is constantly overloading his as s with his mouth

Answer 9

Read carefully: We American's hate Bush, majority of us don't support him, we don't believe in him, he lies all the time, we think he's a total moron, and he sucks a$$.

Answer 10

when all else fails change the goal. really, keep lowering the bar for success until its met and then you can claim you accomplished what you set out to do.