So, candidate George Bush said he would determine "whether or not" to use military force depending upon whether:
LEHRER: How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.
Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.
Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.
And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.
- "our territory is threatened?" ___ Yes ___ No
- "the mission is clear?" ___ Yes ___ No
- "we (are) prepared and trained to win?" ___ Yes ___ No
- "there (is) an exit strategy?" ___ Yes ___ No
When it came to the war in Iraq, sadly, President Bush decided to go to war when the answer was "No" to each question.
I guess that's what happens when you "assume" something. Although, it does help explain the "strategery" of George W. Bush.
Hopefully, President Bush will revisit his earlier commitment to the importance of having a clear mission and an exit strategy as he serves as Commander-in-Chief during the remainder of his term.
Although, I expect he'll continue to spend more of his time attacking those who dare to question doing anything other than "staying the course".