George W. Bush's Argument For Declaring War On Iraq

September 11, 2001, was marked as one of the worst acts of terrorism against the United States since the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. President Bush’s platform of not interfering

President Bush put himself on a high pedestal for a reason. By calling 911 a “war” Bush established the idea of an unquestionable retaliation. This instilled in Americans that their president would make confident, decisive decisions following a tragedy. Repressing doubts or concerns from opposing parties as well as persistent naysayers of President Bush.

In 2001, George W. Bush gave a speech to Congress after the terrorist attack on 9/11. Although I was 10 years old and unable to understand everything then, I am able to understand them now. And as an American citizen I stand by Bush wanting to keep America free and the world a safe place for all human’s to live in. Bush gave this speech on September 20, 2001. Nine days after America had been attacked by terrorists. Bush makes sure to thank many people, including all of America for pulling together and helping each other in this time of confusion and weakness. He then goes on to explain to American why we were attacked and who these terrorists were. They terrorists were al-Qaida, whose goal is to remake the world and impose their radical

President George W. bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq just months after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. There is evidence that shows Bush was after Saddam Hussain from day one of his presidency. Paul O’Neill claims that Bush started constructing arrangements for the invasion of Iraq within days of Bush’s inauguration. Bush denied these claims and discredited O’Neill by declaring he was a dissatisfied employee who was dismissed by the White House and that O’Neill had no reliable comprehension of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraqi National Congress argues that soon after Bush’s inauguration, Bush contacted them to discuss how to remove Hussein from power, which confirms O’Neill’s allegations

Bush told us that we had allies, not mentioning which countries. He claimed that they would help us fight the terrorist who have caused this great distress. War never happened, and there are still many terrorist attacks happening. He claims we were attacked because we have limited powers and people want to destroy

According to Charles Ommanney “Much contention surrounds Bush's reasons for declaring war on Iraq. Many of his supporters believe that despite the false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction, Bush was passionate about bringing democracy to the nation. However, the Iraq war instead brought the country hundreds of thousands of casualties and severely damaged infrastructure. Many believe the war was unsuccessful in its aim to deter terrorist activity. Dissenters believe the Bush administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, intentionally misled the American public in order to secure holdings for the oil industry. An MSNBC analysis of the incident reveals that many believe that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield came to the White House with the desire to start a war in Iraq. While the dispute continues, the fact remains one of Bush's goals in invading Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein, and he was successful in that mission.”

One must examine the fine points of each argument that the administration had proposed for the immediacy of war in order to best refute them. The first and often most repeated argument that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States is that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. I am willing to concede that the Iraqi military possessed both chemical and biological agents. Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of them that were never accounted for after the first Gulf War. He has even used them on several occasions on Kurdish minorities in Northern Iraq. However, no proof was ever offered that he possessed nuclear weapons or the means to develop them in the near future.

September 11, 2001, an Islamic extremist group known as Al-Qaeda brought a series of devastating attacks upon major targets in the United States. 19 militants apart of this group were separated on four different airliners that were successfully completed the attacks on the world trade centre in the heart of New York City, The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and one that was believed to be heading for the white house that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. These attacks resulted in extensive death and desolation, with over three thousand people killed in New York City and Washington, D.C, including over four hundred policeman and firefighters who risked their lives to save remaining survivors in the extremist of conditions. The attacks had

Presidents after Franklin D. Roosevelt have viewed the Executive Branch as having supreme authority in foreign policy. George W. Bush justified the war on terror, Iraq, and Afghanistan that skirted congressional requirements by citing the Constitution. Bush believed that he was allowed to take these actions since he was “Commander in Chief” and had a duty to protect American. Bill Clinton used the same justification for his ordering of bombings in Afghanistan, and Sudan. I believe congress needs to lessen the power of the Executive branch on foreign policy. I firmly believe that President’s should be required to receive a declaration of war before they engage forces so America knows that congress has agreed too. The Supreme Court has weighed on the role of Legislative and Executive branch in foreign policy and sided on both sides.

Bush grew increasingly interested in a second war against Iraq. Bush said the country had “sponsored and sheltered terrorists...developed weapons of mass death...and is seeking the materials needed to [develop nuclear weaponry],” justifying invasion (CITE HERE). On October 2nd, a little more than a month away from Election Day, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, advocated for by the Bush Administration, was introduced on the Senate floor. Often known as the “Iraq Resolution,” it authorized President Bush “to use the Armed Forces of the United States [to]…defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” (CITE

The issues raised by September 11 are less about constitutional war powers than about war wisdom. Under national and international law the President has legal authority to react in self-defense against this invasion of our territory. Even the most vigorous critics of executive power concede that under the Constitution the President is empowered, in Madison's words, to "repel sudden attacks." One might quibble over whether "repelling" an attack, which in the eighteenth century would have been a land or naval invasion by a foreign state, extends in this era to a military response outside the United States to an attack by unknown forces, but the principle

12). WPR was written poorly stating that they only consult congress and not making it mandatory. They also mistakenly stated that the President must report any decisions within forty-eight hours of sending military forces into hostilities, which only demands the President communicates with Congress after they have initiated (pg. 13). This is a failure on the behalf of Congress because they did not take control and stop the initiating of military usage from the President. The various times the military has been use by the President to initiate war the action itself was not him declaring war but due to his initiation of military power it has cause for this be a sign of initiating war. Yoo 's could argue that the use of military power is part of his duties as the Commander in Chief as stated in the Constitution. If after these attacks they turn into war he did not perform any duties that are out of the scope of his position.

After about Nine months into presidency, George w. bush had formed the war on terror plan. It had been said that the plan was put into effect in retort to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. That it was formed to strengthen our national security at home and to extent democracy across the Middle East, but how can this be true when it seems that the United States has been proceeding to the dismay carried out by terrorists groups against innocent people in New York by killing even more innocent civilians within the Middle East. Tens of millions of civilians have died in the Middle East as a direct result of 9/11. Millions have been faced with injury, starvation, poor health and home displacement due to the inhumanity of the war.

This essay is in defense of the Iraqi War. President Bush’s vocal critics state that American troops’ have been sacrificed in the Iraq War. First of all, the word “sacrifice” means that a person voluntarily does or gives up something at his or her own free will (like a bunt to advance a runner in baseball or Catholics sacrificing and giving up chocolate for Lent). I don’t believe that any of those soldiers that have been killed in the war deliberately intended to die or were “sacrificed” as Michael Moore has erroneously stated. And I’m sure that if President Bush knew the names of those soldiers that were going to be killed, I’m certain he would have ordered those individuals to stay on U.S.

On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million