Posted on 12/14/2005 10:45:12 AM PST by indcons
WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters) - As Iraq prepared for its election, President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed the United States will stay in Iraq "until victory is achieved" and he defended his decision to go to war.
Bush gave the fourth in a series of speeches that the White House has used to try to explain his administration's strategy amid a drumbeat of criticism from Democrats who say Bush does not have a plan on Iraq.
"An historic election will take place tomorrow in Iraq, and as millions of Iraqis prepare cast their ballots, I want to talk today about why we went into Iraq, why we stayed in Iraq, and why we cannot and will not leave Iraq until victory is achieved," Bush told the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank.
(Excerpt) Read more at alertnet.org ...
Has Bush ever defined what constitutes 'victory'?
IOW, how will we know when vicotry has been achieved? Will Bush have to announce it or will we be able to discern it on our own?
Or, is this to be like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs?
More third grade pablum. Hey Bush there are illegals in my backyard! What about that?
No finished, ready to use WMD's. 500 tons of uranium and 1.7 tons of enriched uranium, illegal missing programs, known collaboration and assistance given to Al Qaeda, Hammas and many other terrorists groups. Need more reasons to take Saddam out? There are hundreds of thousands of reasons we can dig up. Possibly millions of reasons if we didn't take him out.
Some of us will be able to discern when it is achieved and will let you know.
Victory is the nation of Iraq NOT being a haven for terrorists and state sponsored indoctrination of hate and violence against America. And the Iraqi goverment able to keep it that way.
If need be, there can and will be at least some American military presence there for the next 50 years. So what? Ever heard of Germany? Japan?
Victory is usually defined as when the other guy quits fighting. Works for me!
And, how will we know when this has come to pass?
By what benchmark shall we measure it?
If need be, there can and will be at least some American military presence there for the next 50 years. So what? Ever heard of Germany? Japan?
Congress declared war on both Germany and Japan.
I don't recall a similar declaration for Iraq.
The closest situation is Bosnia. We still have troops in Bosnia, do you support garrisoning them there for the next 50 years?
And what if they never quit fighting?
As HankRearden says, we're there for the next 50 years. Is that okay?
How about 100 years? 150 years?
At what point do you say we've been there long enough?
At the point where remaining there is no longer is America's best interest. For the foreseeable future, the US needs a middle-east presence. Winning the war will result in the majority of our combat forces being removed, but some numbers will and arguably should remain for as long as the mid-east is a strategic concern for the USA.
We already created a presence when we invaded Afghanistan. Didn't need to go into Iraq, except to kick Saddam out of office and take over his oil fields (and banks).
As I've been intimating, there never will be a 'victory' in Iraq. It's all an illusion.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the 'War on Terrorism' and everything to do with securing a middle-east source of oil. You said so yourself.
Now, if only Bush were as honest as you.
Are you rooting for the enemy?
Congress voted giving the President to use force against Iraq.
What if all this people were around during WW II when over 5,000 Americans died in onr day invaded fortress Europe in one day? "How long do we have to be there?"
I'm mad as hell, we've been under attack from these people for over 30 years and America is FINALLY fighting back. Now there is a real chance for a Democratic Republic in the heart of the Middle East where these terrorists are raised and supported and people like you are saying, "How long do we have to be there?, whine, whine, whine."
Horse puckey! I said no such thing. "Strategic" means a helluva lot more than a source of oil.
Now, if only Bush were as honest as you.
What would you know about honesty? Take over Saddams oil fields and banks? B.S. talk like that belongs in DU!
My final word on this - Begone!
Oh yeah? How much middle eastern oil has been secured?
Saddam's Iraq had intensive ties with Al Qaeda, Hammas and many other terrorist organizations.
Read a book. Here's one for you, "Disinformation" by Richard Miniter, you'll find scores of pages of copies of documented evidence in the back of the book. Maybe you want to be deliberate ignorant, so don't read it. I know many closed minded liberals.
If the Bush Administration would NOT have invaded Iraq to take Saddam out the liberal, socialist anti-American Democrats would be attacking him for not doing so using the evidence of terrorist ties. It's all about getting Bush.
The Iraqi people could have been forsaken for oil and America could have persuaded the UN to lift the sanctions and just bought the oil, duh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.