Last Resort? I Don’t Buy It, Mr. President

Bush: Force last resort on Iran

“JERUSALEM (Reuters) — U.S. President George W. Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear program.”

“‘All options are on the table,’ Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.”

“Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: ‘As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.'”

I have that deja vu feeling all over again. I’m almost certain Bush said the very same thing (almost to the word) about Iraq before the invasion. Hmmm…

“‘In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we’re working feverishly on the diplomatic route and we’ll see if we’re successful or not,’ Bush told state-owned Israel Channel One television.”

My memory is getting clearer now…

I couldn’t find a quote from before the Iraq invasion, but I did find this from the 2004 presidential debates.

“But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must – as a last resort.”

“I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye. “

“And if he had been in power, in other words, if we would have said, ‘Let the inspectors work, or let’s, you know, hope to talk him out. Maybe an 18th resolution would work,’ he would have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There’s just no doubt in my mind we would rue the day, had Saddam Hussein been in power. “

“So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force. “

Any of that language sound familiar to anyone besides me? When Bush gives lip service to diplomacy and calls military action the last resort, it seems to be code for “Yeehaw! Lock and load!” Brace for impact, folks. We’ll be going to war faster than you can say “plumeting approval rating”.

BTW, if anyone has a relevant Bush quote from before the invasion, let me know. :)

Comments 7

  1. 4HisChurch wrote:

    That is what I’m worried about–our troops are being spread so thinly. Do we really want another theater of operations?

    Posted 17 Aug 2005 at 12:33 am
  2. micah holmquist wrote:

    FWIW, Bush has previously said ?all options are on the table? RE Iran. I haven’t gone through the whole google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22All+options+are+on+the+table%22+bush+iran+site%3Awhitehouse.gov&btnG=Google+Search) but he did say it on Feb. 22, 2005 in Belgium to, according to the Whitehouse transcript, “laughter.”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050222-8.html

    Posted 14 Aug 2005 at 9:56 pm
  3. Anonymous wrote:

    Unless a city goes up in flames from a terrorist nuke that can be proven to have come out of Iran, a land invasion ain’t gonna happen. After the lack of WMDs in Iraq and the failure to stabilize the country post-invasion, the American people will be quite opposed to another war.

    Yes, Bush isn’t up for reelection again, but the congress is in a little over a year and the GOP congresscritters know that the quickest way to get themselves back in the minority is to fund and support another invasion under the Bush doctrine (even if it were logistically feasible, which it isn’t). And if you think they won’t say no to the president, then where is the social security reform that the president said he’d spend his political capital on? Congresscritters are out for themselves first and formost.

    The President knows this. His comments are sabre rattling, or at most a prelude to bombings. He’s not going to invade, if for no other reason than he knows he can’t accomplish it.

    Posted 19 Aug 2005 at 12:27 am
  4. Funky Dung wrote:

    If we’d been more successful on #1, didn’t have our troops spread so thinly, weren’t relying so heavily on the National Guard – who should be at home guarding the nation, and if I werren’t so tired of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy, I might take this matter in stride.

    Posted 16 Aug 2005 at 1:27 am
  5. Powerball wrote:

    Funky:
    I suggest you go back and review the “Axis of Evil” speech. Bush made it clear back then he was going to deal (one way or another) with Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

    We are now just moving on to number 2 on the list!

    Posted 15 Aug 2005 at 10:48 pm
  6. edey wrote:

    maybe i’m just getting a bit cynical, but i really have come to expect this kind of behavior from the current administration.

    Posted 15 Aug 2005 at 3:09 pm
  7. Funky Dung wrote:

    While Iran isn’t winning any popularity contests, it seems I was wrong about imminent war. Sometimes I’m very happy to be wrong. Then again, when I’m pleasantly surprised by events, my cynical mind tends to wonder if current situations are “too quiet”.

    Posted 21 Feb 2007 at 1:51 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *