(President) Bush Urges Kerry to Say Yes-Or-No on Iraq

AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/6/04 | Scott Lindlaw - AP

[NormsRevenge]

STRATHAM, N.H. - President Bush (news - web sites) challenged Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites) on Friday to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he would have supported the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.

"I have given my answer," Bush told a cheering crowd. "We did the right thing and the world is better off for it."

Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to send troops to Iraq and has said repeatedly that ousting Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was right.

With persistent violence and climbing casualties, Iraq has become a problem for Bush, turning what once was believed to be an asset for his re-election campaign into a vulnerability. Only about four in 10 Americans support the president's handling of Iraq, polls show, and just a third say he has a clear plan to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, Bush tried to put Kerry on the defensive.

"Now, there are some questions that a commander in chief needs to answer with a clear yes or no," Bush said. "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq. That's an important question and the American people deserve a clear yes or no answer."

Bush said America was safer because Saddam Hussein sits in a prison cell. "Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, we did the right thing," the president said. "He had the capability and he could have passed that capability on to our enemies."

Bush also said Kerry's criticism of his Iraq policies merely shows the Democrat doesn't understand who America is up against.

"My opponent said something the other day I strongly disagree with — he said that going to war with a terrorist is actually improving their recruiting efforts," Bush said, referring to a remark Kerry made Monday.

"Now, that's upside-down logic," Bush said. "It shows a misunderstanding of the enemy."

Anti-American forces were training in the 1990s, Bush said. "They don't need an excuse for their hatred, and it is wrong to blame America for the anger and evil of the killers."

"We don't create terrorists by fighting back. We defeat the terrorists by fighting back," he said."

Bush spoke to several hundred cheering supporters at a political picnic.

Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, said Monday, "The policies of this administration, I believe and others believe very deeply, have resulted in an increase of animosity and anger focused on the United States of America."

"The people who are training terror are using our actions as a means of recruitment," he said.

The Democrat has pointed out that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asked in a memo earlier this year whether terrorists were being created faster than the United States could capture and kill them.

Bush's trip to New Hampshire offered a glimpse of high emotions on both sides of the presidential election.

Two groups tried to shout each other down as Bush's motorcade rounded a bend onto a farm, one contingent shouting "Four more years!" and the other "Three more months!"

As always, Bush's team carefully weeded out the dissenters, and "four more years!" was the only cry heard in a pasture-turned-political venue here.

But polls show this state is a dead heat this year and Bush tried to tip it back his way with his seventh visit as president.

From New Hampshire, Bush flew to his family's home in Kennebunkport, Maine, where his nephew, George P. Bush, is to be married on Saturday.

[NormsRevenge]

Apology to Johnny Paycheck and the Bush-Cheney campaign, fellow freepers, Orville Rickenbacher, my mom and dad, :-}

"John Kerry,,,, Take this cob and ... Shove It!"

[RockinRight]

"I have given my answer," Bush told a cheering crowd. "We did the right thing and the world is better off for it."

YOU GO W!!!!!

[what's up]

Kerry will say, "Yes we should have invaded, but first gotten permission from the French."

[PMCarey]

C'mon Kerry's already answered this: "You bet I might have gone to war!"

[gilliam]

I think Kerry will do one better! He will say YES and NO

[Freemyland]

"Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, we did the right thing," the president said. "He had the capability and he could have passed that capability on to our enemies."

I can't quite put my fingers on it, but to me, this statement is one of a true leader.

[Right Wing Professor]

W's wrong on this. John Kerry said yes, before he said no.

[Republic Rocker]

Put this POSER in the corner...Come on Rove get your arrows sharpened....!

[VRWC_minion]

Whats it gonna be boy, yes or no ?

[Soul Seeker]

Tick Tock

No answer yet? Surely the Senator must have heard the challenge. It's a simple question for someone competent to be the Commander-and-Chief.

[nohangups]

I'm sorry, but Bush is being stupid on this one. What does he think he has to gain by saying that we did the right thing in going into Iraq even if:

(a) no WMD

(b) tenuous, at best, ties to Al Quaeda

(c) Iran is much closer to being a Nuke Power

(d) Iran had much closer ties to Al Queada

(e) Iraq now looks to be an utter mess that wil last for years, that may deteriorate into a civil war

(f) Saddam's Army was a rag-tag bunch that had no loyalty to him, would not fight, was not about to march anywhere

(g) Saddam was a deluded would be poet/novelist, constantly lied to by his scientific establishment.

We didn't know or believe any of the above AT THE TIME and maybe we COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN, given the difficulty of penetrating Iraq's closed society. So Bush can in GOOD CONSCIENCE argue that given what we DID KNOW and what we had GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE the decision to invade was REASONABLE AND DEFENSIBLE.

BUT to argue that even if we did know all of the above, we would still have had good reason to invade (when we did in the way that we did) is really just plain folly. He should stick to the reasonableness of the decision in light of what we did know and had reason to believe, not try to say that the new information would not have caused him to change his mind. Makes him look stubborn and pig-headed rather than wise and prudent.

I know some freepers will probably flame me for this (I mostly have been lurking on this board because there is so much flaming and I have, I have to admit, low tolerance for that). But so be it.

[HAL9000]

We will deal with Iran in due course - and our positions in Iraq and Afghanistan will help us to do that. We've got Iran surrounded.

[BobS]

Enough WMD were found in Jordan 2 months ago that were ready to kill 80,000 if the plot wasn't foiled. Where do you think they came from? And through which countries?

[ride the whirlwind]

Well I'm glad somebody is trying to get JfnK to state his case.

Down on the farm today:

[musicman]

I'm not too worried.

kerry seems to have the idea that the only country on the board game of Risk is france.....

Try to play the game of RISK (BUT FOR REAL)once, using ONLY france, and play DEFENSIVELY.....

I'm not too worried.

[nohangups]

Are you suggesting that Iraq shipped its WMD to Jordan? So you're not conceding the premiss, I guess, of Bush's question.

Bush concedes that we haven't found any WMD. Says we should have STILL gone into Iraq because Saddam "had the capacity to develop them."

Do you buy that as a rationale? Do you think anybody still undecided about the election would buy that as a rationale?

Again, the decision to invade can be defended as reasonable and prudent GIVEN what we THEN KNEW and THEN HAD REASON TO BELIEVE.

I don't think with OUR CURRENT KNOWLEDGE anyone but a pig-headed fool would say, "OKAY, LET"s INVADE IRAQ."

I think Bush makes himself look stubborn, defensive, inflexible, by insisting otherwise. Sorry.

The REAL QUESTION NOW. Is WHAT DO WE DO GOING FORWARD.

Why raise any other question?

[nohangups]

Not too worried about what? About Kerry looking presidential? Neither am I.

About Bush snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? I am and think you should be.

Again, the only question that matters about Iraq NOW and the one that Bush should challenge Kerry on is "What do we do now?" The question, "should we have gone if we knew then what we know now?" is open to a thousand different answers. Well, maybe not a thousand. but it can be debated in so many ways. Really only somebody with an axe to grind, would insist that given everything we now know we should still defintelhy have invaded is well, pretty unimaginative, shortsighted or something. I sincerely think it magnifies Bush's weaknesses to focus on that question for even an instant.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Really only somebody with an axe to grind, would insist that given everything we now know we should still defintelhy have invaded is well, pretty unimaginative, shortsighted or something"

This naive conclusion, based on no data and no rational thought process is well, pretty obtuse, uninformed or something.

[meenie]

Knowing what we know now, I don't think the reasonable answer would be yes. Knowing what we knew then, a case could be made which Bush made of going to war. The only question that is creating so much controversy, is did he honestly believe or did he embellish the threat to get public support for the war?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Concise and definitive answers prepared for JFK yesterday by Darkwolf377:

1. "Yes, I wouldn't have with no hesitation."

2. "No, I might very well definitely invade Iraq, unilaterally but only with the help of France and a coalition would I under no circumstances invade Iraq."

3. "Maybe, but only if I didn't first, and then I absolutely would. You goon."