Posted on 01/12/2004 4:30:17 PM PST by Alissa
Monterrey, Mexico-AP -- President Bush is declining to criticize former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who claims in a new book that the White House planned to topple Saddam Hussein before Nine-Eleven.
Bush says he inherited a policy of "regime change" in Iraq from the Clinton administration and adopted it as his own. He says the administration was working out its policy when Nine-Eleven hit.
The president made the comments during a news conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Fox was an opponent of the Iraq war but congratulated the U-S for capturing Saddam.
The poll was not a national election and is was only soliciting opinions for whether Bush's immigration reform plan is a good one or not.
Bearing in mind that the poll was taken in one of the more conservative forums on the internet and the large majority of the participants were Bush supporters, you would have thought Bush would have fared much better.
This is going to be a pivotal issue in November. To think otherwise is pure political suicide.
8. Later this month President Bush will give his State of the Union Address to the nation. What topic are you most interested in hearing the president talk about during his speech? (OPEN ENDED)
| The economy/jobs | 35% |
| Iraq | 17 |
| Terrorism | 10 |
| Health Care | 4 |
| Medicare/ prescription Drugs |
4 |
| Education | 3 |
| Immigration/ illegal aliens |
2 |
| Social Security | 2 |
| Taxes | 2 |
| Budget Deficit | 1 |
| Other | 5 |
| None | 6 |
| Not sure | 9 |
Post #84.
I was just thinking that same thing today!
ROFLMAO!
Are all your posts this inaccurate? This site is overrun with unappeasables.
BTW, the owner and operator of this site -- who I assume read that poll just like you did -- states that it is his intent to reelect George W. Bush.
How about a bet. I will bet that within 3 weeks this issue will not even be discussed around here except for the small core of folks that use this forum for this single topic. Illegal Immigration will NOT be a factor in 2004.
Welcome to the Free Republic! Rant away, everyone else does. For my part, facts rock, and b.s. walks, and that's a pretty common opinion among more seasoned FReepers.
As for a "preventive first-strike war", that appears to be a non sequitur in the case of Iraq, for two reasons:
1) Iraq struck first, and the U.S., as part of a coalition endorsed under U.N. Resolution 678, and pursuant to H. J. Res. 77 and S. J. Res. 2. The State Department article How Congress Backed President Bush's Use of Force Against Iraq in 1991 outlines that process in detail.
2) The war with (or more technically "use of military force against") Iraq that began with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 did not end, but was suspended under the terms of a ceasefire agreement (U.N. Resolution 687), that Iraq repeatedly and flagrantly violated. As John Chapman noted in the Financial Times:
"Crucially, Resolution 687 was passed under UN "Chapter 7" authority dealing with threats to the peace. It does not in any way terminate the authorisation to use force in the earlier Resolution 678. That has to be seen as intentional."
Despite more recent and misleading bickering in the U.N. and a failure to adopt a specific resolution on invading Iraq again, resolutions 678 and 687 have not been repealed, and, at least as far as the "legalities" of the U.N. are concerned, remained in effect. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was fully acceptable under the terms of resolutions 678 and 687, even if the invasion was not conducted under U.N. auspices.
In other words, at least from the U.N. standpoint, the invasion of Iraq was effectively a continuation of the original Gulf War of 1990, which is only now ending.
As for the legality of the invasion under U.S. law, I have always been somewhat leery of the War Powers Act, but it is U.S. law and has been upheld as such by the Supreme Court.
President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq pursuant to, and in compliance with, the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by Congress on October 2, 2002.
Although there have a been a lot of statements by many prominent people that seem to support the idea that the invasion of Iraq was a "preventive first strike" under the "Bush Doctrine" but in violation of U.S. or international law, history and public records don't bear that out.
Although I disagree with President Bush on a great many things, I must assert that most of the public malice directed against him is based on falsehoods and political deception (but I repeat myself).
Certainly, in the case of Iraq, it takes little digging to get at the truth -- if one is inclined to seek the truth. Conversely, it takes no digging at all to be inundated with lies and innuendo, which seem to satisfy most people as a substitute for the truth.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was conducted in full compliance with U.S. and international law. Those who say or imply otherwise are lying.
This is not a rant. These are the facts, and this is the truth.
Is that the earth shifting again I hear?
He's saying what he's said all along...and he said before he became president he'd do a better job and get rid of Saddam. Looks like he's a man of his word. From one of the presidential debates with Jim Lehrer:
LEHRER: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy. And they're so interested that they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president, how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven't heard a big difference right, in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: Well I think, it's hard to tell. I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. I mean --
LEHRER: Saddam Hussein, you mean?
BUSH: Yes.
LEHRER: You could get him out of there?
BUSH: I'd like to, of course. And I presume this administration would as well. But we don't know, there's no inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
LEHRER: You feel that as a failure of the Clinton administration?
BUSH: I do.
LEHRER: Mr. Vice President.
GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration it was right after I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf war resolution. And at the end of that war, for whatever reasons it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. And I know there are allegations that they're too weak to do it. But that's what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia. And you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week. And it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the Communist bloc, it seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor's not necessarily saying that, but you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I'm told, except for three, where they notified. And they're trying to break out of the box, there's no question about it. I don't think they should be allowed to.
LEHRER: Did he state your position correctly? You're not calling for eliminating the sanctions, are you?
BUSH: No, of course not. Absolutely not. I want them to be tougher.
Wonder if he was in the 65%?
Check your own "memory hole". As I've just demonstrated, then Governor Bush stated well before he won election that he would like to get Saddam Hussein out of power. It was always a goal. The events of 9/11 correctly, and he has said consistantly, ramped up expediting that chore.
I notice it is now checked off on the "to do" list.
Job well done, Mr. President. He is a man of his word.
Immigration Reform - Could Be A Hot Button Issue In November Election
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.