Is Bush's biggest problem his inabilty to EFFECTIVELY articulate WHY we went to war in Iraq?

Question

If he was able to do this, he would have much broader support...

Answer 1

Perception is 9/10s of reality, they (whoever "they" is) say.

Bush is not a particularly good public speaker. This does not mean than he isn't intelligent nor does it mean that he isn't a good communicator one on one or in smaller groups, as many of his detractors love to imply.

I do think that one of the biggest mistakes of the Iraqi war effort was not a military one (though there are pleanty of mistakes there).

It was the failure of the administration to understand that this is a Public Relations world, and that is especially true in America.

The necessity to ensure that the public was addressed constantly regarding the war and all that occurred there was a huge mistake.

It was as if Bush thought that since HE "got it", that it would be equally clear for the American public that we got it also. All he had to tell us was, there are the enemy and we need to go get them and that would be enough.

Unfortunately, that is almost never the case.

Answer 2

In retrospect Both President bush, and prime minister Blair may have been on stranger ground had they argued, Saddam Hussein was an evil in him self which had to be removed.

The most serious mistake , in my view made by the former, was to connect Saddam to AL qeida, the links were tenuous at best.

Regarding, W M D, we all would agree he had them back in the 80s, and Early 90s, he killed hundreds of people.( I will mention in passing, that had not Israel in her own interests taking action in 19 80, which the world condemned , he may have had atomic weapons a decade later.)

Did he still have any by 2003 ? the question might be asked ,if he did , would they have been a threat to the USA or UK?.

That said it is not impossible that they might be in Syria, ( not sure how advanced satellite photography has become).

Answer 3

particular, 9/11 had truthfully now no longer some thing to do with the invasion of Iraq. The invasion replaced into utilising Saddam now no longer following the UN sanctions placed on him more effective acceptable than 10 years interior the previous. The Iraq warfare could have finally exceeded off with or without 9/11 taking position. no matter if 9/11 could have in all likelihood sped up the Iraqi situation utilising reality the prospect of Saddam received't were tolerated anymore.

Answer 4

I think you make a good point...about his ineffectual communication. But I don't believe that he would have broader support if he could just find the right words. He needs to be a bigger man and admit to mistakes he has made...he needs to show respect for others and their thinking. He needs to be a leader for the whole country...not just a pal to those who support his thinking.

Answer 5

No. Tony Blair is one of the smootehst-talking men around, and he is unable to convince anyone that the reasons for the Iraq War were just. If Tony Blair can't sell it to you, no one can.

Answer 6

No he would not get broader support. He EFFECTIVELY articulated LIES

Bush said
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Not True
Zero Viable Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any viable chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq. We found shells of old sarin gas that had been used in the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active.

Bush said:
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

Bush said:
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at past nuclear sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

Bush said:
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Not True

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003

One of the biggest whoppers: Iraq could launch an attack in 45 minutes.

On September 26, 2002, President Bush repeated a claim put forth by British intelligence that "the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." On September 28, he again made the claim in his weekly radio address.

Not true

NO aerial vehicles could be found to substantiate that claim. I know some idiot is going to say, "Well they got moved into Syria" They need to ask themselves this question. IF we were able to see this on satellite and through " intelligence" why is it we did not spot such huge vehicles being moved? We didn't because they did not exist.
So what more did he need to articulate effectively for people to start drinking the koolaid again?

Answer 7

You went to war because of terroist attack on September 11th

You went to war in Iraq because of Geniside and War Crimes Saddam Hussin was inflecting on Humanity,

You went to war to save a nation of People

people should Get your head out of the politics and really look at what was and is being accomplished

Answer 8

I would like to know. At first it was to overthrow the reppresive regime and get rid of Saddam Hussein. Success. Then it was because of WMD. No success. Then there are the rumors of oil. Then Saddam tried to kill Bush's father. They invaded Kuwuit and we should have finished the job in the first gulf war. Al Queda ties? Who knows?

Answer 9

No......The Liberals are the biggest problem, with their Treasonous Attitudes towards the Administration.

Answer 10

Very smallest thing is that Mr. Bush himself is of destructive nature.