Reading the top-ranked posts in this title leaves me dumbfounded. Here are a few examples of the ludicrous statements made by other 'authors' in this title:
"He (Bush) has blundered so badly in Iraq..."
- James Ruhnke
"It is not that I think that he (Bush) is smart enough to know better..."
- Marc Auber
"With any kind of luck, this administration will not invade any other country. Hopefully, the UN will be allowed to do it's job and solve the world's issues in a peaceful manner."
- Simply Sue
That last one is my favorite. Let me ask you a question, Sue... Why do you think John Kerry lost the election in 2004? Two reasons. First, when he announced his plan to combat terrorism: "We will meet any attack with a swift and forceful response..." You see, the whole point is that we don't want to wait for another attack. Bush's goal, which he has accomplished, praise God, is and has been to see that we do not get hit again. The second reason Kerry lost is because of talk just like your words I quoted above. America decided that we do not want the UN to be charged with the responsibility of protecting us. We are a sovereign nation, and we answer to no one.
All I can say to people like Marc is that you are way behind the times. The "Bush is dumb" mantra got worn out in the 2000 election. By the 2004 election, Bush was being praised by his adversaries as a very smart political foe, and his doctrines on foreign policy have actually received praise throughout the world. Oh, sure, the terrorists don't like it, but the people who matter most, our allies, have been firmly on board. You need to get some new material, my friend. Or maybe try watching what is going on and do some real thinking for yourself, instead of just parroting something you heard on television.
The main criticism I will address in this article is the one quoted above by James; the "Iraq was a mistake" mantra of today. Exactly what part of Iraq was a mistake, James? Are you saying we should not have gone in? I would have to think you are. I would hope that you are smart enough to know that wars are tough, and sometimes things go wrong. However, if you compare our casualties of this war with wars of the past, we are actually doing very well. It could be argued that it is safer for a soldier in Iraq than it is for inner city youth of Washington DC... I guess we should pull out of there, too?
I will take you through the top 3 arguments against the war in Iraq (which is a part of the War on Terror), and you will see how it was most certainly not a mistake.
Argument 1) "The failure (Iraq) will occur because we did not gather a coalition to invade a nation."
This statement is untrue. First off, it is not clear that it will be a failure. Yes, Great Britain pulled out of the south, but liberals might watch how wide they open their mouths, or at least make sure and throw a little seasoning on their feet before they do. Great Britain pulled out because the generals on the ground said they were no longer needed in that region. That is a very strong sign that things are going well in that area of the country.
In fact, we have known for months that the progress in Iraq has actually been quite good throughout most of the nation. Many areas are already in the rebuilding phase. The problems in Iraq have been focused largely in a few key areas that add up to no more than 20% of the overall area. To put it in perspective, imagine us having to send the military into California. Imagine we establish peace throughout the entire state, except for Los Angeles. Would we call it failure because there is fighting going on in Los Angeles? If we can overcome what is happening in Baghdad and a few other key small areas of the country, there is a very strong possibility of success in Iraq.
Liberals are going to look real funny with all that egg on their face if we do achieve victory. They have shamefully banked on our defeat, but we are not out yet.
As to the second part of that statement, we did have a coalition. It was not good enough for liberals, but it was still, by definition, a coalition. You see, in the Gulf War, we let the coalition define the mission. Many of our Arab allies were not okay with us having a stated objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. If we would have included that as part of the mission, we would have lost a large part of that coalition.
This time, G W Bush let the mission define the coalition. When you do that - lead by principle - the coalition will naturally be smaller. But this is something liberals do not understand - acting on conviction. This is leadership. Deciding what has to be done, and then doing it. You make your case to the allies, and you get as many on board as you can. But you do not let your mission be whittled away by those who are only halfway or conditionally-committed.
Argument 2) "Bush rushed to war..."
At the end of the Gulf War in 1992, as a condition of their surrender, Saddam agreed to disarm and to submit to UN inspections. By the time Bush got into office, we had given up on and abandoned inspections, and all the intelligence was telling us that he was still developing nuclear and biological/chemical weapons. He even used these weapons on his own people - some estimates say he killed in excess of 300,000 of his own people. He used sarin and mustard gas on his own people, not to mention the torture chambers and rape rooms at Abu Ghirad. I know liberals got all upset about underwear on the heads of terrorists, but that was really nothing compared to what had been going on there before we got there.
Saddam had 11 years to comply with UN sanctions - the first 8 of that under Clinton's watch. Bush actually campaigned in the 2000 election on the promise that he would hold Saddam to those sanctions where Clinton had not. He said it in the debates with Gore, when asked about where he agreed/disagreed with Clinton foreign policy (and even Gore agreed). He said he agreed with Clinton's actions in Kosovo in ousting Milosevic, as did most Republicans. But he also said that Clinton has allowed a problem to fester in Iraq, by not enforcing the UN sanctions and keeping pressure on Iraq with the inspections.
Secondly, a major factor in the decision to go into Iraq was that we had just been hit on our own soil. It was known throughout the world that Baghdad was a refuge for terrorists - that Saddam had extended a welcome hand to Bin Laden and others for years. There was even a report on it in 1998 on ABC News, when Clinton launched the missile strike against Iraq. The newsreel showed film of Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden walking together arm-in-arm in the streets of Baghdad.
The Bush doctrine that resulted from 9-11 outlined that we would not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor or aid them. Iraq was already on the "to-do" list when Bush came into office. September 11 boosted them even higher on the list of priorities, especially after the way liberals were scrambling to find some way to lay responsibility for 9-11 at the feet of Bush.
Argument 3) (This is my favorite...) "But what about the WMD?" Or better known as, "Bush lied..."
First, this is a deception that has been perpetrated by the democrats and the media that WMD have not been located. It is absolutley false. Liberals like to cite the Duelfer Report. This was the report filed by the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) in October, 2004, headed by Charles Duelfer.
There was a great article in the Washington Times on 10/08/04, entitled MISREPORTING THE DUELFER REPORT. The media had decided to focus on the line in the report that said that there were no stockpiles of weapons found. Here is the actual headline from CNN's website, which is still active today:
Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq (Thursday, October 7, 2004)
What they did not focus on was actually the key line in the Duelfer Report, which said, "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
In addition, and largely unreported by the media was the report that came after the Duelfer report, the NGIC report (National Ground Intelligence Report), which was made public in June, 2006. This is the team that picked up where the ISG (Duelfer) left off, and it showed that the inspections were in fact, incomplete. The NGIC did find WMD.
Here are the key points in that report:
Key Points:
* Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
* Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
* Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.
* The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
* The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
* It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
Sorry, but the debate is over. Apparently, liberals are going to stick to the old news that suits their political ends, regardless of the news that has since overridden and refuted their desired perception.
Even without WMD, if you will read President Bush's speech to Congress on 10/07/2002, you will see that there were many, many reasons highlighted on why we needed to take action against Iraq. In fact, that was one of the initial criticisms of Bush by the democrats - that he would not focus on just one reason; he was actually naming too many!
Besides WMD, the atrocities Saddam was committing against his own people made Milosevic look like an amateur. Did liberals protest that war? No, because that was their guy in office. But the fact remains that anyone who did not protest that war has no basis to support an anti-war position for our actions concerning Iraq.
Here are just a few of the many other reasons Bush gave in his assessment of the Iraqi threat (the quotes are directly from George W Bush's speech):
1) Iraq's history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
2) We could not verify whether Iraq had destroyed its WMD because they were not allowing or thwarting inspections.
3) They had not stopped all support for terrorist groups, as per the UN agreement.
4) "The Iraqi regime practices terror against its own people."
5) Saddam is a "murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people," and he, "holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."
6) In 1995, the regime admitted that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents.
7) Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.
8) We know that Saddam has financed "suicide bombers" in acts of terror.
9) Iraq and al Qaeda had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
10) "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making, poisons and deadly gases."
11) "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
12) Citing a President Kennedy speech from October, 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
13) "The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception."
14) "In the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times."
15) "(Iraq) must cease the persecution of its civilian population."
16) "(Iraq) must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program."
17) Iraq was holding an American pilot from the Gulf War, whose fate is still unknown.
18) "I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein."
19) "Failure to act would embolden other tyrants..."
20) "This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own."
21) "On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."
I have just listed 21 reasons Iraq should be and was considered a threat, as outlined in Bush's speech of 10/7/2002. Any one of these elements would be reason for deposing Saddam Hussein on its own merits. When you consider this list collectively, the case for action against Iraq is overwhelming.
Here is an additional point to consider: Let's say that Bush had listened to liberals, and he had decided not to go into Iraq. What would have happened if we were hit again, and it was discovered that Iraq was somehow involved? If Iraq had funded it, organized it, or even worse, provided the terrorists with sarin gas to maximize the damage. Imagine something like 9/11 happening again, but this time, the terrorists have hefty doses of chemical agent such as sarin gas, which Iraq did have stockpiled.
I will tell you exactly what would have happened - liberals would have been coming out of the woodwork, screaming for Bush's impeachment for not protecting our country against a known threat to the US. Even democrats such as Bill and Hillary, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, were on record at that time as stating that Saddam Hussein was a known threat to the US. Had Bush not acted and we got hit again, liberals would be crucifying him.
Finally, President Bush also said this in his speech of 10/7/2002:
"Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors."
Even amidst all of the demonizing and anti-war rhetoric, such as what I outlined at the beginning of this article, President Bush is keeping his word to the Iraqi citizens. Agree with him or not, this man is a leader. When we emerge from Iraq victorious, I pray we remember all the treasonous actions of this Congress, and act appropriately at the polls in 2008.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
- J. Michael Waller