Bush said Iraq is critical to winning the global war on terror and is the central front in the war against terror. He said "enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there and they must be defeated."
That strikes me as a unique viewpoint. We now know Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMD, and definitely posed no threat to us. If Iraq didn't have any part in the terror attacks, why is it critical to winning the global war on terror and a central front against terror?
When one country is attacked and occupied by another country, and its people and their allies fight to drive out the invaders, aren't the usual terms used for those people "freedom fighters", "resistance fighters", and "patriots"? Why are we calling them "terrorists"? They tried marching and shouting and carrying signs telling us to leave. That didn't work. We shot them. Now they're shooting back, and we still won't leave. We're asking for another $87 billion in addition to the $79 billion for a total, so far, of $166 billion, and we all know government estimates usually go over the original amount. Instead of leaving, we're asking other countries to join us and we're talking about being there for many years. The problem of so-called terrorists in Iraq will leave there as soon as we do.
We're liberating those poor Iraqi people to death.
Our fighting the Iraqi people will not be an essential victory in the war on terror, occupying a country that we invaded will not promote freedom, and having 130,000 of our troops 6,000 miles away will not make our own nation more secure.
Bush said "we" would do what is necessary, "we" would spend what is necessary. Unless he had a mouse in his pocket, I think he's talking about you and I. "He" is going to be in the White House, "he" is going to be at his ranch in Crawford, "he" is going to be going to parties with 5, 10, and 50 thousand dollar-a-plate dinners, raising funds for his re-election. I suggest he raise $87 billion, resign, and turn that money over for use in Iraq.