MTP Deconstruction: Pre-emptive war

[Taeger]

Pre-emptive, Why, Who Else????


Russert: And now, in the world, if you, in the future, say we must go into North Korea or we must go into Iran because they have nuclear capability, either this country or the world will say, ‘Excuse you, Mr. President, we want it now in hard, cold facts.’

President Bush: Well, Tim, I and my team took the intelligence that was available to us and we analyzed it, and it clearly said Saddam Hussein was a threat to America.

Now, I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm just trying to make sure you understand the context in which I was making decisions.
He had used weapons. He had manufactured weapons. He had funded suicide bombers into Israel. He had terrorist connections. In other words, all of those ingredients said to me: Threat.
The fundamental question is: Do you deal with the threat once you see it? What in the war on terror, how do you deal with threats? I dealt with the threat by taking the case to the world and said, Let's deal with this. We must deal with it now.

I repeat to you what I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would have emboldened Saddam Hussein. He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time I'm not saying immediately, but over time which would then have put us in what position? We would have been in a position of blackmail.

In other words, you can't rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can't rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace, and it's too late, in my judgment, when a madman who has got terrorist connections is able to act.

Russert: But there are lots of madmen in the world, Fidel Castro …

President Bush: True.

MR. Russert: … in Iran, in North Korea, in Burma, and yet we don't go in and take down those governments.

President Bush: Correct, and I could that's a legitimate question as to why we like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea. And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq. As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy could embolden Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we were in. In Iraq I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We are making good progress in North Korea.

As I've said in my speeches, every situation requires a different response and a different analysis, and so in Iran there is no question they're in danger, but the international community is now trying to convince Iran to get rid of its nuclear weapons program. And on the Korean peninsula, now the United States and China, along with South Korea and Japan and Russia, are sending a clear message to Kim Jung Il, if you are interested in a different relationship, disclose and destroy your program in a transparent way.
In other words, the policy of this administration is to be is to be clear and straightforward and to be realistic about the different threats that we face.


Any comments????

[bahrbearian]

1. LIES

"In other words, the policy of this administration is to be is to be clear and straightforward and to be realistic about the different threats that we face."

[napi21]

2. What did this man do during English Class?

I listened to most of the meet the Press show today, although I had to hide the remote to prevent me from changing the chanel!

I guess Bush's reason for appearing on Meet the Press was to boost his ratings. Well, HE FAILED!

The only people who believed his explaination for premption are the sheeple followers he has.

He, and his Daddy's group he surrounded himself with, decided to go to war in Iraq because they we're still pi**ed that they wern't alowed to go to Bagdad in 1991, and of course, Saddam tried to kill his Daddy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Bush totally ignored Korea

when they were openly saying they had nukes and pointedly asked to parley with the US. No, Shrub, the reason you went to Iraq is spelled in three little letters: OIL

[Taeger]

4. Weapon "over time"

I repeat to you what I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would have emboldened Saddam Hussein. He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time I'm not saying immediately, but over time which would then have put us in what position? We would have been in a position of blackmail.

In other words, he is dangerous because he COULD HAVE developed a nuclear weapon sometime in the future. Therefore, he is an enemy that we MUST invade.

Meanwhile, our "ally" Pakistan HAS developed a nuclear weapon. AND, it's proliferating the technology to ... TADA .. North Korea.

Good thinking Bush. So now, we can't invade N Korea even if we WANTED to. We are spread to thin over Iraq AND Afghanistan. Both countries are close to civil war.

How are we safer????