Are the Republicans flipflopping on Iraq? Chairman of the armed services calls for a "course correction"

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061014/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq_1

Are they joining the Democrats call to not stay and pay?

And why did Bush mislead and lie to get his way in attacking Iraq?

Answer 1

They will say ANYTHING to get into the flow of the voters thoughts and wishes at this time -- because it is election time
As soon as they sell thier bill of goods to people
getting them to believe that they are actually attempting to bring some reason into all this---and get their vote
it will be back to business as usual
prepetuating a war situation where the military industrial complex keeps swallowing the national income to beef up an otherwise failing economy--- and the whole thing will continue as it is right now for the absolute forseeable future---buckle up---this is going to be a very very very long war !!!!

Answer 2

THE DEMOCRATS are the CUT AND RUN PARTY,not the REPUBLICANS,The chairman of the armed services committee is the one who made the mistake to start with by not putting enough boots on the ground to start with,and let's stop with the BUSH LIED statement,There were 14 major reasons to go into IRAQ,not only wmd's,which if you kept up on the news,WE FOUND 500 CANISTERS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS APPROX THREE MONTHS AGO,but the democrats tried to cover that up ALONG with the LIBERAL main deal is that WE ARE THERE NOW,SO THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS NEED TO UNTIE OUR HANDS AND L E T U S F I N I S H . although anyone with any INTELLIGENCE KNOWS THAT IT WOULD MAKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD IF WE LOST,THATS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS WANT,REGARDLESS OF THE LOSS OF LIFE TO OUR TROOPS,just so the DEMOCRATS look good and regain power

Answer 3

You would be a flip/flopper to if you had to try and convince the American people That you didn't start a war just to make money for you and your friends.
Now we also look like chumps because we cant do any thing about the real threats of the world like Iran and North Korea. It was a REEEAAALLL smart move to go invade a country that did not have a thing to do with any one but its own people. you cowardly Retartlicans make me sick. youll do anything for a buck.

Answer 4

Mired down in a bogus war with no winnable objective in sight I wonder how long we can continue to stay the course. A very small fringe element of the right wing Republican Party had siezed control of the American Executive branch - but is an open question how long it will be allowed to stay in power.

Answer 5

Whatever happened to staying the course? I would say this change in policy (flip-flop, flip-flop) is a function of election month politics.

Answer 6

I'm curious, what did Bush say about Iraq that Clinton, the French, Britain, Germany, and the UN didn't? Please give some examples

Answer 7

1 - No.

2 - No.

3 - Cause he's an Evil Conspirator, that's why!

Answer 8

Most of the generals are against the premise of the war and feel change is necessary.

Answer 9

Hillary Clinton says about the North korean problem>> "Part of the reason for these problems is the Bush administrations policy on the situation" HA! I feel that N. Korea won't do anything. I feel Iran and Syria may want to get more into the insurgency business by hiring their oppressed poor, including Afghanis. We will just keep fighting off insurgents. I have a good friend from Iran who thinks that if Iraqs economy picks up, as it should, without terrorism of innocent to stop it, Irans youth will want what Iraq has, lkie Afghanistan wants now too. He si presently, with paranoia, also buying Iraqi Dinar...lol Russia and China have too many oil, interests in iran to get DIRECTLY involved. Noone struck Israel when they fought back lebanon, that tells you something. Israel would crush Syria and Lebanon militarily, very quickly. Japan alone (besides us, Britain, S. Korea) would crush N. Korea. And Iran would be done within a month. My Irani friend said most Iranis secretly WANT a capatalistic society, but they don't want to get "sang-sarred" for saying so. <> It is my opinion that maybe some of the above mentioned may happen, but more than likely, the iraqi economy will just fluorish, and other countries will make threats so THEY can have a better economy too. Realize, they don't have what WE realize as even POLICE in Iran (the way we know it) or social security, or ALOT of things. Also, from EXTREMELY good sources, the death count of Iraqi since the war is around 50,000-sad-but compare that to our civil war. AND, look at what happened yesterday!!! Innocent teen girls and below age ten girls kidnapped and killed by terrorists???? HOW are these people dying? From direct orders of Oppressors, that's how. And how do they get them to do it?, not with religion. With promises. As soon as the oppressed terrorists figure out that REGARDLESS of religion, the promise of FREEDOM and PROSPERITY (food, water and non-oppressive leadership included) is ALOT longer lasting than a run and gun of innocents, they'll come around........but as to hillary's comment.......................... Bin Laden Invited to the White House?
Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!
Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.

But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.

This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."

Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."

Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.

A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."

Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.

That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.

Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."

While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.

Here are just some of Baer's key points:

In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.

Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.

The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.
Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.
In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."

After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.

Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.

But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.

In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]

In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.

But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.

During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."

The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.

Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.

"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.

Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."

Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?

Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.