2007-03-01 00:11:25 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. In fact the Bushies had said that the military was not to be used for nation building.
Bush on Nation Building:
http://zfacts.com/p/136.html
Cheney on Nation Building:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/009152.php
Rumsfeld on Nation Building:
http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Jan/29-267854.html
Wolfowitz on Nation Building:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0410/p01s02-woiq.htm
Rice on Nation Building:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/09/international/europe/09rice.html?ex=1265691600&en=0030caea1cbef982&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=all
Well it's worked so far ain't it. Damn that "liberal" press crap, especially when it shows what was said about nation building before the war is exactlly the opposite of what we are doing there now.
2007-03-01 01:14:19 · answer #1 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don’t think Bush and his Republican cohorts in his administration and in the Congress really assumed they knew the time frame it would take to rebuild Iraq or conduct the broader war on terrorism.
Actually the question is based on a premise, which in light of recent events, can no longer be relied upon. The question assumes that Bush and the Republicans intended to fight a quick war that minimized causalities on both sides. That might have been what they told the public to elicit their approval, but that is far from the truth. Given the unscrupulous nature of Bush and his minions I think this assumption is false, far too generous, and is too optimistic.
The reality is that Bush and his colleagues want a prolonged war, because the longer the war, the more he and his business connections can profit off of the reconstruction effort. A quick and tidy war, that kept the law enforcement and overall governmental structure intact, while only ousting Saddam, would have gone too quickly for us to justify our prolonged presence. Without a lengthy occupation, there can be no extended reconstruction effort, which means fewer profits for American business ventures that are involved in this effort.
The expeditious end of this war and bloody occupation is achievable, but the will to make money, trumps the will to save American, and Iraqi lives. That is the true reason for the “quagmire” in Iraq.
2007-03-01 07:40:45 · answer #2 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush really doesn't have any thoughts, other than I'm right, he has been spoiled his whole life and never had to really work for anything, he can't understand why the country doesn't want to go along with his narrow view of things he needs to go on a vacation until 2008, oh thats right he is on vacation.
2007-03-01 01:07:48 · answer #3 · answered by watcher 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No he didn't and we didn't. And military history shows us it takes a long time to build a new nation on the foundation left behind from the old nation.
2007-03-01 00:34:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mikira 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not at all. The President warned that this was going to be a long process. It's the dopey Democrats who think that this whole thing should have been over in an eyeblink. I think it's because most of them have the attention span of a moth.
2007-03-01 00:16:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No we knew and Bush warned all along this would take time..
It's just the liberals who don't have the patience and want to jump ship when things get hard.
2007-03-01 00:22:07 · answer #6 · answered by . 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, Bush said repeatedly the war on terror would take a very long time.
2007-03-01 00:14:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋