Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

[urbsdad6]

"OK, let me get some stuff straight here at the outset. Much of what I post is cut and paste either as complete articles from news sources (AP, various Newspapers, CNN, blogs, etc.) The last post I made re: What's this about attempted Bush coup?? offended folks because it contained a phrase by the author (striderus)and not me ((" I hope this is true (that a coup against them is still in motion), because Bush and Cheney are threatening to start what would become WW3 right now.")) I should have been more careful as even after rereading 4 or 5 times I still could not find the statement but eventually did. All I wrote was "Hey I don't write them, I just find them to see what we can see and change what we can change. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. Prove it one way or another and follow the links." as a way to let people know I wasn't the author and would really like some help with others following the trail and finding accuracies and inaccuracies to sort out what the truth really was and is. Just the same I must apologize because "The Buck Stops Here." It is my responsibility to all of you to edit inappropriate content and especially content that would support the treasonous and violent takeover of the Government. I in no way support a military take over of the Government. Therefore I will in the future do my best to indicate more clearly what my thoughts are vs what is contained in the article, clip, blog, etc. and still ask for anyone willing to help me correct what my interpretation or misinterpretation of statements made by authors of said articles. Thank you for your understanding.

That being said, the following article is from the AP and Boston Globe. It can be found at:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._for_iraq_war/

To me the article points out something that has been said all along. The war is about oil. It is also interesting to note that this marks how many times the Administration has changed their story about the reason(s) for the war? So I ask once again are we getting the full truth and nothing but the truth? Why does the story keep changing or is that a misinterpretation on my part?

Doc Urb

Here's the Article:

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.

''We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. ''We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."

Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its 1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug. 14 in the United States because of the time difference.

Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.

''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the American people, America's allies, and America's troops," said Howard Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief."

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the federal response effort.

After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks operating from his ranch in Crawford.

Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.

It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 now nearing 1,900.

The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding that troops be brought home.

This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect religious freedom and women's rights.

At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure" from Al Qaeda and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

? Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Army_Brat84]

If it is about oil, then why are we paying almost $70/barrel (factor out Katrina)? Seems to me if it was about oil that we would have just secured the pipeline and held only it and got all that free oil. This whole war for oil idea is bogus and here's why. If oil is the reason, then why not attack Saudi Arabia, or any other Middle Eastern country (Note: Please do not take this as a call for war against these nations)? Or, why did we not make Kuwait give us all the oil we wanted for their freedom? Why not go after Iran, it has some? We could also attack and conquer the Spratly Islands which would get us into war with China and several other nations, but it has potentially the fourth largest bed in the world. All these places, and yet we did not try to take them over for their oil, and we are not doing it to Iraq. We may get a deal on Iraqi oil once their government finally takes shape, but we may not.

We are fighting to give the Iraqi people something they have not had in a long time, freedom. Saddam was a threat and needed to be stopped, even though people like Michael Moore seem to think that it was a paradise under Saddam. While most media see the WMD as a bust, I find it hard to believe that Saddam could fool not only our intel., but that of Russia, Britain, and a few other countries. My theory is that he sent them next door to Syria. All of the wars that we fought in the last century and this one were fought to either defend freedom or to bring freedom to people. We have one most, somewhat lost one (Vietnam, though that was mostly the South Vietnamese's fault), and some are still going on (Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq). To say that this is a war for oil is simply denigrating all the sacrifices of those who have served or are serving in Iraq.

[David]

Originally posted by urbsdad6 It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 now nearing 1,900.

I would argue against most of the post but it has already been done many times and those inclined to close their eyes will still close their eyes. I will however dispute the statement above with the following statistics:

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
8-2005 83 0 0 83 2.68 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.77 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.84 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 36 1 3 40 1.29 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31
12-2004 72 2 3 77 2.48 31
11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.7 30
10-2004 63 2 2 67 2.16 31
9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.9 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.67 30
5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.71 31
4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.67 30
3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.68 31
2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.68 31
12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.55 31
11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.67 30
10-2003 44 1 2 47 1.52 31
9-2003 31 1 1 33 1.1 30
8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.39 31
7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31
6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.2 30
5-2003 37 4 0 41 1.32 31
4-2003 74 6 0 80 2.67 30
3-2003 65 27 0 92 7.67 12
Total 1882 93 101 2076 2.32 896

As you can clearly see from the data above the last month was not "especially deadly" with an average of 2.68 deaths per day.

While we mourn any and all deaths during the current operations our military is involved in I am sure tired of people constantly distorting the facts and using these numbers for political purposes.

To balance ones political aspirations upon the backs of the war dead is truly a disgusting practice.

[colmurph]

More folks have been shot to death in New York City in the same time frame. I din't hear anybody protesting about that. More folks have been kiled on the streets of U.S.Cities than in combat. Statistically it's safer to do a tour in Iraq than to be a cop in NYC.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by David

I would argue against most of the post but it has already been done many times and those inclined to close their eyes will still close their eyes....

While we mourn any and all deaths during the current operations our military is involved in I am sure tired of people constantly distorting the facts and using these numbers for political purposes.

To balance ones political aspirations upon the backs of the war dead is truly a disgusting practice.

One of my daughters, a clinical psychologist, radiantly informed me the other evening that propaganda is a form of "Operant Conditioning."

Very effective, but subject to abuse.

Not only can we expect to see more of the same, but it will continue to exist in the annals of this war effort in perpetuity.

Fortunately, the outcome is not governed by such distortions... unless we allow it to be.