Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| The arrogance of George W. Bush |
| 08.05.04 (5:34 pm) [edit] |
|
The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, made one of the most arrogant and frightening statements several days ago, yet there has been scant attention paid to it. When asked if, hypothetically, he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war started, would he have invaded still, Bush replied that he would have. His reasoning being that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had the potential to build his arsenal of weaponry. Perhaps this response by our president doesn't surprise you- I can't say that I was shocked by him saying this; it is the implication of this statement that is shocking. The Bush Doctrine of preemption now extends not only to regimes that pose immediate threats to our nation's security, but to, well, anyone. There are countless world leaders and various nations that are vehemently against the United States, many of these posing somewhat of a threat. There are many nations that have the capacity for building their arsenal and creating weapons of mass destruction. But it is not in our nation's best interest to embrace this ideology of warfare. When we allow war to be considered justified by nothing more than the potentiality of a state to build its arsenal and possibly attack us, we operate under an 'anything goes' foreign policy. It is a dangerous precedent that President Bush has set. Preemption is one thing, but basing a war on nothing more than circumstantial evidence is dangerous policy. Naturally, Bush would not declare that his decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. He is only trying to compensate for the faulty intelligence the war was supposedly based on. But by making this statement, he is providing a self-indictment for what liberals have been claiming all along- that Bush had intentions of a war in Iraq all along. There is a difference between defending the actions of the Administration regarding Iraq by saying that, though there turned out to be no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq as they had thought there would be, the war was justified because they had reason to think there were WMD and Hussein was a dangerous man who could have harmed the US in the future, and saying that even knowing that there were no WMD, we still would have attacked. I disagree with both statements (in fact, I don't even believe the war would have been justified had there been WMD), but the first is only illogical, the second coldly arrogant. Imagine the President of the United States announcing that we are entering into a war with another nation... and giving no justification. The only reason given being that the leader of the nation had the capacity to attain dangerous weapons and be a threat. While security is important, indescriminately starting wars is not the way to ensure security. It will only promote hostile attitudes against the US. But now we have the President stating plainly that he would have invaded Iraq even had he known beforehand that there were no WMD. The main justification for the war, and the single claim that gave national support for the war was the claim that there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. There is no way the war would have been approved had there not even been that claim. But Bush sees no problem with this- his newfound 'diplomacy' of combat overrides the need for support, and more important, the need for justification. Why this admission by President Bush has not been a bigger deal, I do not know. Personally, I was appalled and somewhat terrified when I heard it. My only hope is that Congress will be more hesitant to allow us to enter into war in the future, and that Bush will never have the power to make such a decision again. |
posted by: SpyMaster (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (2:44 pm)
Bush is a dangerously stupid and corrupt crook who isn't fit to serve in office.
We need to get rid of him. Even John McCain (R-AZ) condemns the LIES that Karl (Joseph Goebbles) Rove is having his thugs spread in TV ads about John F. Kerry. This group of imposters called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth(?)" (sic) are actually LIARS--- and John McCain calls their ads "dishonest and dishonorable".
Assholes like Noguru, stepdad, Reducto, deshanews, LynnKramer and other fascists support Slander, Libel and Heinous Defamation of Character against John F. Kerry-- so long as it promotes the dwindling fortunes of their neo-con crooks: Bush and Cheney Inc. who are catastrophic failures having fucked-up the economy here at home and foreign policy, the worst in our nation's history.
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=SpyMaster&static=251665
Good blog, DragonBait22.
posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (3:34 pm)
Thank you for making this observation. He is using Nazi tactics gradually changing the goals after the fact. Now, he can choose to invade any number of countries claiming that they are basically anti-American.
Imagine a year from now the US invading France or Russia because they said something anti-American. It seems impossible now, but statements like that one are preparing the US public to accept it in the future.
Scary stuff!
posted by: SamAdams (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (4:40 pm)
We should never be led to war based upon lies. It was the biggest scam ever perpetrated upon our nation.
Thank you for the well-written blog.
posted by: jesusisangry (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (5:30 pm)
good blog.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (6:15 pm)
Its good to see you blogging again.
"who had the potential to build his arsenal of weaponry."
I have the potential to build an arsenal of weaponry. Come and get me, Bush. Bring it on!
(note to TIA agents- please don't bring it on)
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (6:56 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
LOL!
posted by: RT (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (6:59 pm)
Interesting blog. Your frustration is quite understandable.
I think most people view this election as figuring out who is the lesser of the two evils.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:17 pm)
Reply to: RT
Lol, nice segue into my next blog... ;)
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 08.06.04 (10:01 am)
When somebody admits that the reasons given for going into a war were irrelevant, that constitutes proof that he was lying.
Bush effectively said that he would have gone to war if the reasons he gave the American people were true, and he would have gone if those reasons were false. In other words, those were not the reasons we went to war.
If those were not the reasons we went to war, then Bush lied to the whole country when he told us that those were the reasons.
Furthermore, what can one conclude about the other "reasons" we went to war? Were they truly justifications? This is the same president who said during his campaign that he was against "nation building" and came out against foreign policy based on human rights. He made it clear in his campaign that we don't invade a country just because we don't agree with their policies. His supposed justifications are so much in contrast with his political promises that he has no credibility.
This is the same man who is attacking Kerry for seeing shades of gray and analyzing things in detail, yet the whole nation is overlooking the massive flip flops of Bush since he first ran for office.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 08.06.04 (10:03 am)
Reply to: SpyMaster
If you don't like Noguru, stepdad, Reducto, deshanews and LynnKramer, then don't use tactics such as name calling yourself. You started off with a strong point and could have kept going with it instead.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 09.09.04 (12:43 am)
Reply to: mblog
I'd like to request that you come here and suck my member
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 09.09.04 (10:14 am)
Reply to: newbie
I doubt you have one, or you would have signed your entry.
