1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Phase III of Bush's War

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Truth-Bringer, Sep 3, 2007.

  1. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Phase III of Bush's War

    by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Those who hoped that – with the victory of the antiwar party in 2006, the departure of Rumsfeld and the neocons from the Pentagon, the rise of Condi and the eclipse of Cheney – America was headed out of Iraq got a rude awakening. They are about to get another.

    Today, the United States has 30,000 more troops in Iraq than on the day America repudiated the Bush war policy and voted the GOP out of power. And President Bush, self-confidence surging, is now employing against Iran a bellicosity redolent of the days just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    What gives Bush his new cockiness? The total collapse of the antiwar coalition on Capitol Hill and the breaking of the Congress.

    Last spring, Bush vetoed the congressional deadlines for troop withdrawals, then rubbed Congress' nose in its defeat by demanding and getting $100 billion to support the surge and continue the war.

    Before the August recess, Democrats broke again and voted to give Bush the warrantless wiretap authority many among them had said was an unconstitutional and impeachable usurpation of power. They are a broken and frightened lot.

    Comes now evidence congressional Democrats have not only lost the pro-victory vote, but forfeited the peace vote, as well.

    According to a Zogby poll the last week in August, just two weeks before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report, Americans, by 45 percent to 20 percent, give this Democratic Congress lower grades on handling the war than the Republican Congress it replaced.

    Fifty-four percent of the nation believes, contra Harry Reid, the war is not lost. That is twice the support that Bush enjoys for his war leadership, a paltry 27 percent. But, by nine to one, Bush's leadership on the war is preferred to that of the Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

    Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.

    And George W. smells it. He no longer fears the power of Congress, and his rhetoric suggests he is contemptuous of it. He is brimming with self-assurance that he can break any Democratic attempt to impose deadlines for troop withdrawal and force Congress to cough up all the funds he demands.

    Confident of victory this fall on the Hill, Bush is now moving into Phase III in his War on Terror: First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran.

    Do not take this writer's word for it. Hearken to the astonishing rhetoric Bush used at the American Legion Convention in Las Vegas against Tehran:

    "Iran ... is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. ... Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. ... Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes. ... Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

    "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. ... We will confront this danger before it is too late."

    Bush has repeatedly warned Iran to cease supplying Iraqi insurgents with arms and enhanced IEDs for attacks on our troops in Iraq.

    How has Tehran responded to Bush's virtual ultimatums?

    "The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months – despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq. ...

    "Iran's leaders cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis."

    This is a case for war. Indeed, it's an assertion by President Bush that Iran is colluding in acts of war against the soldiers and Marines and allies of the United States. What does he intend to do?

    "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities. ... We've conducted operations against Iranian agents supplying lethal munitions to extremist groups."

    This suggests that U.S. forces may already be engaged in combat operations against Iranians.

    Who or what can stop this drive to war?

    Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran. Before the August recess, the Senate voted 97 to zero for a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

    The resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, but the gist of it declared that Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, laying the foundation for a confrontation.

    What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think?

    Nothing and no one.
     
  2. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is this "Bush's War"?
     
  3. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    How is Iran participating in acts of war against the US? They're scared, what would we do if someone attacked Canada? Hypocrisy permeates the entire US government, in particular, as of late, the Republican party.
     
  4. capillary

    capillary New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Iran is NOT scared of the USA
     
  5. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You aren't playing fair. You can't go asking questions that are going to expose the flawed reasoning at the very basis of the position. Of course, a fatal flaw can be found at the core of most libertarian positions.
     
  6. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Of course they are but their religion requires bravado on their part.
     
  7. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    I'm sure many of the innocent civillians are very scared of America.
     
  8. Hard Driver

    Hard Driver New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gee

    Because Bush started it....

    More complicated answer:

    Bush and his administration started pushing for it the day after 9/11

    Then Bush pushed for the re-introduction of inspectors in Iraq under threat of war, which the congress approved.

    Then, after Saddam complied with the UN and complied with inspectors requests, and took a proactive stance trying to prove he had no WMD, Bush started the war without any additional congressional approval, even after Saddam had complied with the terms of the original threats.

    Bush and his admin also distorted the intelligence on Iraq, to the point of lying, to create support for this war.

    These all make it Bush's war.
     
  9. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...with Congressional approval (including a majority of the Democrats).

    And yet the Iraq War we "rushed into" didn't start until 2003. You can't have it both ways.

    The Iraq Resolution was introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

    Hardly "Bush's" War.
     
  10. Reliant

    Reliant New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lol... This war didn't start the day the troops landed. Less than three months after the September 11 terrorist attack, we were hearing that President Bush was about to unleash the dogs of war. He intended to give armed support to dissident groups in Iraq. He had ordered the C.I.A. and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that "could begin within months".


    As recently as January 31, 2002 the head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq had cooperated fully with its routine annual inspection of factories and other potential facilities for the production and storage of weapons. Nothing was found.

    Recent inspection teams searching for chemical or biological weapons made similar reports. Hans von Sponeck, United Nations humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, upon returning from Iraq in July 2002 said that all of the facilities the U. N. inspectors had previously destroyed were still disabled or destroyed.

    Even he was troubled by Bush Junior’s stance....
    "One does not need to be a specialist in weapons of mass destruction to conclude that these sites had been rendered harmless and have remained in this condition. The truly worrying fact is that the US Department of Defence has all of this information. Why then, one must ask, does the Bush administration want to include Iraq in its fight against terrorism? Is it really too far-fetched to suggest that the US government does not want UN arms inspectors back in Iraq? Do they fear that this would lead to a political drama of the first order since the inspectors would confirm what individuals such as Scott Ritter have argued for some time, that Iraq no longer possesses any capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction? This indeed would be the final blow to the ‘war against Iraq’ policy of the Bush administration, a policy that no one else wants."

    When someone needs to lie, offer fraudulent information, and deceive a nation with distortions, then we can only conclude that yes, indeed, this is Bush's war.
     
  11. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you're acknowleding that we didn't "rush into war"?

    We can argue about all the other stuff later, but I want to stay on topic here. Every Senator and Congressman had access to the same information and yet the majority of Democrats still voted to authorize the Iraq War.
     
  12. Reliant

    Reliant New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Certainly not. But I will admit that the Democrats were complicit in our rush to this war.
    "To stampede us into a war neoconservatives had been plotting for a decade, Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's No. 3, set up an Office of Special Plans. Its role: Cherry-pick the intel that Saddam was acquiring weapons of mass destruction and was hell-bent on using them on the United States. Then, stove-pipe the hot stuff to the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and ignore the contradictory evidence".
    All they needed was an excuse, nothing else. No hard evidence, no UN approval, nothing. Even the thought of war increased Bush's popularity so they had to strike while the iron was hot.
     
  13. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Very good interpretation my friend.

    I'm glad that things have finally evolved in a way that the Democrats are no longer seen as always being anti-war which can so easily be twisted by neo-con spin into anti-military.

    That's what happened in this case. The Democrats were so focused on not being seen as afraid to engage in battle that it allowed the Bush/Cheney/Rove dirty tricks machine just the opening they so desperately wanted.

    Now the cats out of the bag and people see the administrations fraud & trickery. I don't give the Democrats a full pass though because they could have done things... should have done things to see past the smoke & mirrors. However we also have to remember that at this time the Republicans had all the major avenues locked up as far as investigations go... The White house and both houses of Congress were firmly under Republican control.

    I'm glad to see both sides supporting the troops and the Dems really pushing for the better armor, training etc. while they're doing all they can to end this quagmire and bring them home in VICTORY... because the truth is we won a long time ago. Now we're just spending tax money in boat loads sacrificing our brave guys & gals in a stupid Nation Building scheme.
     
Loading...

Share This Page