Why does Bush pretend he must keep the war going? He won't find anything & he's making the US look like fools.

Question

I think this is all on him now, because he can't still be getting bad intelligence from his people unless they want to make him look bad. Believe me it's working, even though he's a lame duck prez he shouldn't take down the rest of the party with him. Sooner or later these guys are going to start cutting attachments to him, doesn't he realize this?

Ralph S.
Doesn't he understand that we don't give a crap about these countries. If he's not in it for oil, then what's the use? There is nothing else for us over there. It is not our job to bring democracy to the rest of the world; we have enough troubles here at home. We finally got into the black & now we are futher in the red than at another time in our history. I am not a stupid or gulliable person which leaves me in the top 2% of my fellow Americans. Bush is trying to leave a legacy, but he already left one, one that he doesn't want.

Answer 1

Yes he is making us look like fools and we are gaining more and more enimies by the minute.He wont back out because he views this as his country now and we the american citizens are going to be the ones to pay for it,but he will have his place in the history books so he doesnt care.We cant fight the world and thats where Bush is leading us to a world war that we cant possibly win.why cant more people see this!?!

Answer 2

You proceed from a flawed premise. Bush is not pretending. He *MUST* keep the war going. He has no choice. He started it, he has staked his presidency, his credibility, his leadership on it, and the reputation and moral credibility of the United States of America in the world at large upon it. And we let him---remember the vote in congress? He has to keep it going.

The bad intelligence doesn't change the situation. Nor does the fact that too many of us really did think that Iraq had WMD's. All that simply means we as a country staked our credibility going to war without building a better case, and as a result we've blown our credibility in the world, we've undermined the legitimacy of our presence in the country, and as a result deserve every accusation of acting deceitfully and aggressively heaped upon us. Why? Because in politics perception is reality, and by not building a convincing case to the world and saying "bring it on" we invited it all, and we'll have to spend a very long time working very hard to rebuild the world's trust in us, and it will be a slow and painful process.

Never mind the fact that when Saddam Hussein fell, the power vacuum turned Iraq into a free fire zone which allowed criminals to run riot, to allow ex-Baathists to engage in insurrection, allowed Al Qaeda to set up a robust franchise in the country, and allowed Sunnis and Shi'ites to start waging war on each other, and Iran to start covert actions to support the Shi'ites, and that the whole mess has created a market where any hot head who needs a few bucks can go make an IED, brag about it and collect a reward when its detonation is covered in the news. That simply means that we sold ourselves a bill of goods, walked into a situation we didn't understand and failed to control things.

The war must go on because if we pull out violence so many kinds of hell will break loose what will follow will make everything that's happened to date look like a tea dance. Nouri Al Maliki's government could implode. Moqtada al Sadr could press his advantage which could enrage the Sunni's and escalate the violence. If that happens, then Iran will probably step up and support the Shi'ites more openly. If that happens a nation that supports the Sunni minority like Saudi Arabia might step in to protect the Sunni's.

None of the solutions I've heard yet are pretty ones. If we partition the country into Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish states, Iraq is ethnically mixed enough that the forced migrations will turn into bloodbaths. If we pursue a diplomatic solution we have to deal with countries who may or may not have a stake in the violence, and in any case Iraq has become such a huge mess, it's quite possible that it's too big for the regional powers to control by themselves in any case. That's only a sample of the Polyanna-ish scenario's I've heard.

Why does Bush keep it going? Because that his best hope to make something out of this mess. Never mind how badly it's been mishandled. Never mind the lost opportunities. Never mind that we've seriously damaged our own legitimacy and position as a world power. Never mind that even our own intelligence estimates say that the war has increased rather than decreased terrorism, the very thing that the war was supposedly about. He's got to keep going. Maybe he's praying for a miracle. I *REALLY* hope he gets one, for all of our sakes. Because we as a country let him do this, through our representives and through our own inability as a people to hold them to task and demand prudent, principled, responsible leadership from them. And we're all paying for our lack of vigilance. We as a people have to work up the political and social will to get past who's not patriotic enough to support the fight and start demanding that we really start talking about what it will take to salvage the mess: militarily, politically, socially and diplomatically. Until then, we just keep going...

Answer 3

Not pretending...anyone with sense and guts would keep it going..If we back out now, we will lose all credibility and the last 3 years would have been a waste.
We can not and will not Surrender as long as we have a strong President...things migh go downhill in 2008 if the Lying Liberal Flip Flopping Cowards get in

Answer 4

already republicans have started to sever ties with our beloved president. But now look we have an all democratic house, and they're saying we shouldn't get out of there right away. Democrats know whats important and thats oil. They see a crap war, and they're going to try and salvage something out of it. OIL OIL OIL

Answer 5

I,m a Britt, and believe me you don't look like fools ,,someone has to do the dirty work and police the world,, we did it , now its your turn then another power will do it;;;;; its called life.

Answer 6

Because he is too damn stupid and stubborn to see any other course of action

Answer 7

It keeps peoples minds off his other shenanigans.

Answer 8

Bush has explained his position many times.

If the liberals would take the wax out of their ears, their brains would fall out.

Answer 9

This is your opinion!! Why don't you stop all the name calling and "Bush bashing"? Most people are sick of it!! If you can't ask an intellegent question, then don't ask any!!

Answer 10

Not everyone is insane enough to still be worried about wmd's. Both sides thought they were there. What is important now is making it so Iran doesn't take Iraq over afer we leave because we will really be screwed then.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.