Bush misled the American public in the 2000 Election Campaign

[financeguy]

How else is it possible to interpret these quotes? (extracts from the 2000 Election debate)

'MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Today our military forces are stretched thinner and doing more than they have ever done before during peacetime. I think we would all like to know what you as President would do to ensure proper resourcing for the current mission and/or more selectively choosing the time and place that our forces will be used around the world?

BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.

I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has become somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often.


-------------------------------------------------------------------



MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation-builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------



MODERATOR: In the last 20 years, there have been eight major actions involving the introduction of US forces. If you had been president, would any of those interventions not have happened: Somalia?

BUSH: It started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.”


---------------------------------------------------------------------


MISCELLANEOUS BUSH QUOTES:

"I don't want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don't want to be the world's policeman; I want to be the world's peacemaker…"

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that."

"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests."

"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations."

"Let me comment on that. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. I think we can help." '

 

[BVS]

Bush misled the American public

Something I would file under the "well duh" drawer.

 

[BonosSaint]

Get ready for the "Everything changed after 9/11. It's a different kind of war" argument. Sigh.

 

[cardosino]

Something I would file under the "well duh" drawer.

Really. A politician misleading the public during an election campaign ? Say it ain't so !!!!!!

 

[Dreadsox]

9/11 didn't change everything?

 

[deep]

it certainly did not change everything




one should explain or defend actions with rational discourse




when that phrase is used -
it is just a huge load of crap.

 

[deep]

BUSH: I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation-builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.

Well, there you have it.

We have a gutless President that caved-in to Cheney and Haliburton.

Nation building is extremely lucrative. $$$$$

 

[BVS]

9/11 didn't change everything?

No

 

[Dreadsox]

Then I guess there is nothing to discuss. If you believe that 9/11 did not change anything, good for you.

Apparently a rather large majority of the democrats in the House and Senate disagreed with you.

 

[BVS]

Then I guess there is nothing to discuss. If you believe that 9/11 did not change anything, good for you.

You asked if it changed everything, not anything...

 

[Dreadsox]

I am not looking to get into a pissing match about the use of words....

9/11 clearly changed the House and Senates view of the Iraq situation.

 

[DaveC]

Of course 9/11 changed some things. The Manhattan skyline, for instance.

Not one single person here ever said that absolutely nothing changed.

 

[Dreadsox]

Again not my point...

Shall we examine the quotes and letters of Democrat pre-Iraq? Does that make them liars too?

 

[BVS]

I am not looking to get into a pissing match about the use of words....

9/11 clearly changed the House and Senates view of the Iraq situation.

It's not a pissing contest. I wasn't trying to be smart here. I just don't believe it changed anything enough to justify Iraq, the two have no ties.

 

[Dreadsox]

It's not a pissing contest. I wasn't trying to be smart here. I just don't believe it changed anything enough to justify Iraq, the two have no ties.

So the President, and Congress, should not have had a change in their collective viewpoint, based on the perceived dangers after 9/11?

 

[financeguy]

So the President, and Congress, should not have had a change in their collective viewpoint, based on the perceived dangers after 9/11?

Not if it was based on dodgy intelligence, or to directly quote D.S.M., 'the intelligence is being fixed around the policy.'

 

[Dreadsox]

Not if it was based on dodgy intelligence, or to directly quote D.S.M., 'the intelligence is being fixed around the policy.'

If you believe that to be the case there is probably nothing I can do to change your mind.

I can only say that before the war, I read source upon source from Germany, Russia, and France that had virtually the same results as the US intelligence,,,,


Otherwise I would believe as you do, that the US was doctoring the intelligence.

When other nations opposed to the use of force had the same intelligence indicating the same thing as the US, I come to the conclusion there was no effort on the US's part to beef up the case.

 

[BVS]

So the President, and Congress, should not have had a change in their collective viewpoint, based on the perceived dangers after 9/11?

Of course they should have changed their collective viewpoint. And the collective viewpoint should have been let's go after the terrorist that did this. Not hey let's CREATE a battlefield to which we can start a war that will never end.

 

[DaveC]

Christ, Dreadsox...would you stop with the rhetoric already??

Yes, OK. Their viewpoint changed somewhat (although I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far). But how does a totally unrelated terrorist attack (no matter the size) justify the wholesale invasion and occupation of a completely different country in a totally different situation who had absolutely ZERO capability of launching a credible threat to ANY western nation?

 

[Dreadsox]

Dave, if you are of the opinion that I am not open minded enough to be voicing my own thought out opinions...

Then I have nothing really I can say to you......

I would like to think that people who have known me in here for the better part of four years would give me more credit than repeating "rhetoric" as you call it...


I would ask you this....

Why was the US attacked on 9/11 in your opinion?

 

[DaveC]

You know that's a loaded question. You're trying to trap me.

And the "people know me so it's obvious I wouldn't do it" argument is just about the biggest fallacy there is.

 

[BVS]

Dread what's your new avatar, is that someone's foot on someone's back? Kinda kinky...

Paticular artist? Reason?

It's very interesting...

 

[Dreadsox]

You know that's a loaded question. You're trying to trap me.

And the "people know me so it's obvious I wouldn't do it" argument is just about the biggest fallacy there is.

Good chatting with you

 

[verte76]

9/11 didn't change everything?

Not everything. I supported the Afghanistan mission because of 9/11, and because the Taliban were a bunch of Nazi types, but not Iraq. Iraq was the kind of nation-building he was denouncing in the campaign.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dread what's your new avatar, is that someone's foot on someone's back? Kinda kinky...

Paticular artist? Reason?

It's very interesting...

 

[BVS]

Damn you I wanted to know.

 

[Dreadsox]

Iraq was the kind of nation-building he was denouncing in the campaign.

That was not the intent of Iraq though....

It had to be a part of it....

But do you really believe we would have had a war in Iraq IF 9/11 did not happen?

I feel the nation building would have been easier had we a broader coalition. I am not saying this to disrespect any nation that has contributed, but I believe we are hurting on this end of things because we did not invest in the diplomacy early on.

 

[financeguy]

Why was the US attacked on 9/11 in your opinion?

Well seing as DaveC is seemingly not prepared to answer the question, I can give my personal opinion.

To me there a quite a number of unanswered questions about the attacks. For example, why were wealthy Saudis allowed to fly out the of the US just days after the event at a time when all civilian aircraft were grounded? Why were the planes not shot down?

In terms of the reasons for the attacks, there is a theory, which I find intriguing, that Bush administration was in negotiations with the Taliban to build an oil pipeline - however the negotiations broke down and a few months later 911 happened. According to this theory, although Bin Laden was probably planning the attacks for quite some time, he did not give the final instructions until he got clearance from the Taliban who at that stage were protecting him.

 

[financeguy]

I feel the nation building would have been easier had we a broader coalition. I am not saying this to disrespect any nation that has contributed, but I believe we are hurting on this end of things because we did not invest in the diplomacy early on.

Well I agree with you on that, I am increasingly of the view that Chirac is a complete and utter c*** and is determined not to contribute to the nation building purely to piss off the White House. Meanwhile, people are dying.

 

[najeena]

If 9/11 hadn't happened, American troops wouldn't be in Iraq, no matter what crappy intelligence was floating around. I think that Bush and his buddies exploited the tragedy to get what they wanted. Mislead the public? He does it every damn day.