Did Bush inappropriately take advantage of 9/11 in his reasoning for war or was his reasoning legitimate?

Question

I guess I should try and clarify what I mean - I'm just trying to say that America was in such an emotional frenzy after the attacks. If emotion were removed from the situation would the same events have occured post-9/11?

Answer 1

Maybe!

But here is the congressional resolution:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The argument was that after that attack we had to look at everything more seriously, and prevent a future attack if there were a likely source. Just like, when one plane crashes because of a faulty part, every plane - even different makes and models - may be checked for the same malfunction.

But the lesson of Iraq may be that the public will never support any war other than a purely defensive one.

Neither Bush nor anyone else will ever be able to prove conclusively that they definitively thwarted any attack on our interests from Iraq. We would have had to wait until anything was very close to completion, and our intelligence (needless to say) was not that good. For better or worse, the idea was "better safe than sorry."

I also think that since there were 12 years of US Security Council resolutions being ignored the idea was that America needed to prove it was tough and not let Saddam slide. If we withdraw without achieving victory I fear we will prove just the opposite.

I think it's fair to say that Bush & co. greatly underestimated the difficulties in a post-Saddam Iraq. Honestly, I'd say that, whether or not we found WMDs, people would be discouraged about the war going on as long as it has. Imagine if it had wound down a year or two ago, rather than the insurgency taking a foothold. I imagine few people would be talking about it!

There is plenty to criticize. But when people say he lied, or did it for greed, is where I have to part company.

Answer 2

Boy that is a rough one
1) he goes into Pakistan / Afghanistan after Ben Laden - dill never nailed the mother - I would think we should nuke the mountains flat or until Ben is handed over to us.
2) He then suspects, like all those in the know, that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Whether they never had them or there in Syria - we can't find them. I would think after Bush was on the aircraft carrier claiming victory that we should have pulled out and let the UN defend the land.

Best thing Bush can do is a JFK move - give the US a ten year goal to get on Ethanol and off oil as if we were going to the moon.

Answer 3

YES, he did innappropriately take advantage.. Remember this is the man who is close friends with Saudi royal family and allowed the Bin Laden family to fly out of the US after 9/11 so they wouldn't be "persecuted". Bush was aware that OBL was most likely in Afghanistan. His decision to invade Iraq was based on faulty and unclear intelligence (or so he says,I guess when you make a BIG mistake you have to place the blame somewhere). Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (did Bush?) OBL was not in Iraq, so then he changed the story to "looking for WMD's", there were none. Then it was "liberation of the Iraqi people". Saddam is dead, I am sure "Dubya" is happy. What did we gain from this? 3,000 dead American troops, thousands of dead Iraqi's, a country mired in civil war,high gas prices, dissention among Americans and the disrespect of the world. Yeah, I would say Bush really screwed us.

Answer 4

time will show the underlying reasons we had to remove Saddam. I think if you read between the lines of everything it is very evident but those said reason couldn't be revealed in order to try to keep as much peace in the middle east as possible in this ONE step of eradicating the threat of global terrorism. I agree that the reasons that were given were maybe dubious at best but they were something that every body knew or thought and to justify a need you must at least give some reasons. I think both sides are aware of those underlying goals which can be seen by even the left leaders have said we cant just leave Iraq. They used public descent to gain power but hopefully those underlying goals are not abandoned due to descent to lessen the meaning of all that has been accomplished.

Answer 5

The invasion of Iraq happened over 1½ years after 9/11. Bush's presentations to the Congress and UN started over 1 year after 9/11.

In his multiple presentations - the the UN, the Congress and to the US public, the Bush administration presented the evidence it had and the reasoning for the necessity of the use of force. They have maintained the same message for over 4 years now, without change.

The reasoning was quite legitimate. Bush and the GOP had absolutely nothing to gain from a war, and everything to lose. Politically, it was a very risky move. They supported this because it was the right thing to do.

Answer 6

Yes.

The Pentagon itself suffered attack. How can anyone have faith in the Bush Defense Department that failed to protect itself! We know there were detailed warnings which the Bush Administration ignored leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush and his inept national security team ignored incredibly detailed warnings, so calling those who question Bush's failures kooks or pointing to outlandish theories to tar sensible people won't work. Bush knew or should have known about the specific threats. He failed to do his most essential job. Bush failed to protect us, and 3,100 died on 9/11

After the fact…rather than embrace efforts to find out what went wrong on 9/11/01 to prevent another devastating terror attack, right wingers in the White House adopted Watergate cover-up tactics, stone-walling, lying, and of course attacking Americans who want to know the truth.

And went on a fear mongering campaign to scare Americans into buying into his own agenda…the agenda he had in mind before even taking office…to invade Iraq. And to use Saddam as the scapegoat to divert attention from the fact that Bin Laden (the man ultimately responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks) just couldn’t be found.

Since we Americans were so conditioned by the color coded terror alerts we happily followed our leader.

Answer 7

There are those who believe the the Bush regime was behind 9/11 to give them an excuse for starting their war.

Answer 8

This is something you must decide for yourself. Depending on your views, he either lied about WMD, his beliefs clouded his judgement, or the weapons are still there but haven't been discovered. I personally think that Rumsfeld and other White House cronies were giving Bush bad information and Bush's views are so myopic that he though he was doing the right thing. But, only Bush knows his motives.

Answer 9

It depends on how you look at it and how you interpret things. We are at war with the Taliban, they were responsible for 9-11. I assume however, that you are talking about the war in Iraq. People will tell you that he falsified evidence to lead us into that war, and that he is just finishing what his dad started. He may be finishing what his dad started, who knows, but he did not falsify evidence to lead us to war. Our reasoning for war with Iraq was weapons of mass destruction (WMD's). Our countries intelligence, along with the intelligence of several other countries, led President Bush to believe that Saddam had WMDs. The intelligence that he showed congress, and the intelligence that the American people saw, is the same intelligence that President Bush recieved. So, should we be at war with Iraq? Probably not. But did the President falsify evidence and lead us to war with a country that was completely innocent? No! Another thing, while Bush did say that there was a link between Saddam and Al Queda, that was not the reason for going to war with Iraq. The reason for war with Iraq was the WMDs. So the fact that there was apparentley no connection between saddam and 9-11 is a null point.

Answer 10

some hate us with the aid of Crusades. Nevermind the undeniable fact that Muslims stormed into Europe first and arrived on the gates of Paris whilst killing ladies and youngsters alongside the way.. yet many countries linked with Christianity truly made a large number out of the middle East, distinctly after the international wars. they did no longer care approximately splitting up tribes and cultures. somewhat, the middle East is a large number partly with the aid of West. Attacking Muslim countries with the aid of fact of oil isn't assisting the issue lots in any respect. yet for sure, human beings interior the middle East frequently get fed mendacity propoganda each and every day. however the U.S. does a similar with it somewhat is voters. maximum individuals interior the middle East are like us interior the West. they simply want to get with the aid of each and every day, defend their little ones, deliver their little ones off to college, and allow their legacy proceed to exist with the aid of their little ones.