There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The world has not become a safer place. Hell, the price of gas hasn't even gone down. So why did US forces invade and occupy Iraq, and why are they still there?Five years ago the American military launched an attack on Iraq that began with "shock and awe" and was followed by a quick, successful ground campaign. Less than three weeks later the world saw images of US soldiers pulling down the statue of Saddam in Baghdad's Firdos Square.
However, it seemed that no one in the Bush Administration had given much thought about what to do after that. On May 1 -- the day that the president landed on an aircraft carrier and spoke before a banner that declared "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" -- the US had suffered just 139 deaths in Iraq. Today that total is about to reach 4,000, and thousands of others have been badly injured.
The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein was brutal, and no one weeps about his fate, but there are brutal governments in Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. What justified this action more than attacks against those countries? And what justified breaking with historic policy and common sense to launch a preemptive war?
Incompetence and dishonesty at the very highest levels of our government have brought us to where we are now: stuck after five years without a viable plan to extricate ourselves. The fact that these people -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice -- are able, presumably, to sleep at night is stunning.
20 comments:
we know you hate Bush,but don't you agree, in a long term out look a stable democratic goverment in iraq is best. when this happens the world will be a better and safer place.as for fuel cost you can thank clinton who i'm sure you loved, wasn't he the president that open the flood gate of unfair trade with china which has increased the gobal demand for fuel driving up prices.
A stable democratic government in any nation is preferable to a thuggish tyranny, but it seems a truism that democratic ideals need to come from the citizenry rather than be imposed by an occupying force. What the US has done is emboldened a worldwide jihadist movement.
I'd venture to say that if the American military had concentrated on Afghanistan, captured and tried Bin Laden, and got out of there quickly, the "better and safer place" that we all hope for would have been much more likely.
Remember what Bin Laden wanted to do: In enacting 9/11 he hoped to get the US bogged down in a war in Afghanistan that would inspire Islamic terrorists, kill American soldiers, and cost the US billions of dollars. America would have confounded this plan if we were in and out of that country with the Taliban dead or in jail, al-Qaeda dismantled, and Bin Laden himself rotting away in a concrete cell. George Bush, however, allowed the plan to succeed by invading Iraq and having it substitute as the quagmire.
Furthermore, I will again point out that there are a number of terrible governments in the world, some we trade with (e.g., China) and some are outright allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia). Why invade Iraq?
Lastly, you didn't take on the concept of preemptive war. Do you think it's a good idea?
"...Clinton, who I'm sure you loved..."
Why put words into my mouth? That is a favored tactic that allows the speaker to then frame the argument. Find me a post where I said that I love Bill Clinton.
Certainly, Clinton in every way is preferable to George W. Bush -- unless we're talking about clearing brush.
Clinton, most would agree, is a bright guy who had a legendary command of the facts, ideas and background on every issue. He also helped to drag the Democratic Party to the center, which angered me. Overall, I see his presidency as failed, bogged down in politics, weak compromises and, yes, a vast right-wing conspiracy.
I disagree with many aspects of globalization. It values the rights of corporations over those of people.
Saddam had deep alliances with Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda backed terrorist groups, Saddam's Dangerous Friends. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that was backed by a vote of 360-38 in the House, by "unanimous consent" of the Senate and signed by Bill Clinton, called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The UN Security Council passed more than a dozen resolutions concerning Iraq's failure to comply with the conditions of the cease fire following the first Gulf War.
Islamic jihadists financed and carried out the attacks of September 11th, using East Boston as a planning, staging and launching area. The same Islamic jihadists, assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in retaliation for signing the peace treaty with Israel in the Rose Garden of the Whitehouse. They also attacked and killed 241 US Marines in 1983. They blew up the plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. They attempted to take down the World Trade Center towers in 1993. They dragged the bodies of dead Marines through the streets of Mogadishu. They attacked the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and bombed the USS Cole in 2000 - another attack that was partially planned in East Boston.
Iraq is but one den from which these threats emanate. The goal of Osama bin Laden, Ahmedinejad and others of their ilk is to reinstitute the Holy Islamic Caliphates. Islamic groups around the world are attempting to institute Shariah Law in their own enclaves.
This was not a preemptive war; if anything we were late to recognize that we were already in a war.
Regarding weapons of mass destruction, Saddam used them on his own people and they were used during the first Gulf War. There are those that believe that during the run up to the war with all of the stalling by the UN inspectors, that Saddam moved his WMD to Lebanon's al Bekaa Valley.
Bush didn't invent the threat nor was he the first to call for regime change in Iraq. It's disingenuous to state otherwise.
The "US has...emboldened a worldwide jihadist movement". I agree we have and so did bin Laden in an interview in 1997. We've emboldened the jihadists by our reluctance to defend ourselves and our way of life.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld screwed up the war after the fall of Saddam. If they had listened to the likes of McCain early on, Iraq would be much more stable already and we could have moved on to Damascus and Tehran by now. This is not to say that we would have incurred fewer casualties had there been more troops in theater, only that the peace would have been secured more quickly.
How long will we be in Iraq? Hopefully, as long as it takes. One could ask how long we will be in Japan, S. Korea and Eastern Europe.
The truth is that extremist Islamic terrorists are here in this country and in East Boston and they have been financed by bin Laden, Hussein, Ahmedinejad, Basher Assad and others. Logan Airport is now sacred ground for them because it is the last place where the 9/11 hijacker's feet touched the ground before ascending to heaven. They all seek the destruction of the U.S. Some of them seek the downfall of all of western society as we know it. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we will recognize that we must eradicate the threat.
"There is a rank due to the United States among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure the peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." - George Washington 1793
Did you hear about the report released last week? An exhaustive investigation found NO connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
What was the wimpy liberal think tank that reached that conclusion? Oh ... the Pentagon.
Jim - read the Weekly Standard report, link provided as "Saddam's Dangerous Friends". It addresses the exhaustive report you mentioned. No need to post this, because I have no desire to point out that you didn't read what I gave as supporting documentation. It's worth your while to at least peruse the info before you respond.
I have reviewed the provided links, and I say again that Saddam Hussein was a scoundrel and he was consorting with scoundrels, but there are quite a few scoundrels in the world. Don't forget that under Reagan the US was behind death squads in more than one Latin American country and significantly helped the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Reagan was a scoundrel as well.
Jimbo, your personal views are not necesary the right ones. Dreaming about stories and making up facts is a very bad habit that your egocentric personality seems to have perfected. Bush is who he is and there is no need for comment, but to acuse him of lies you need facts that so far you don't have. Because if my president, in good faith make a decision to protect me, no matter how it turns out latter to me it is the right one. So enough with slander and if you have any serious fact bring it on. Otherwise as usually, from your corner of the world, keep disinforming and spreading mediocre thoughts. P.S. Probably you will not post this comment, because the free speech does not mean much to you if it doesn't conform to your ideology and dogma.
1. It's my blog and I'll post whatever I feel like posting.
2. I almost always allow comments critical of me to be posted.
3. Libel is written defamation; slander is spoken.
4. If it's true it's not libel (or slander).
jimbo, this proves that liberals are sick people.you guys are so dysfunctional. the real enemies of America are LIBERALS
post that you wacko
Jimbo, ignore that last post! He or she has no facts to offer and the only thing they offer is personal attacks! My question to that poster is what level of schooling do they have? Because they don't know how to have an intelligent discussion.
Stay on the ball Jimbo
No foreign Army or Bombs are going to destroy America. America is going to be defeated from within. This will be done by liberals. Liberals are destroying everything that was once great about America. Boy, how I wish I could go back to the 50's when everything was simple. Everyone went to Church on Sunday's and respected GOD. Now you sick liberals want to remove God from everything, schools, buildings even our money. You liberals are sick people and the sad thing is you don't even know it. The colleges have our kids brainwashed.
America is in trouble and it's not terrorist its liberals. I love the fact that Hillary and Obama aka Osama are attacking each other. I hope they continue to bash each other. The funny thing is that if you look at both candidates you will see that they pretty much have the same political ideas and beliefs. Yet, Hillary, Obama and their supporters are bashing each other. Keep it up so McCain can walk right into the White House. GO McCain.
to the 9:28am poster: when and where do you want to meet to have this intelligent conversation?
"Now you sick liberals want to remove God from everything..."
Actually, it is conservatives who want to ADD god to everything. Jefferson -- you've heard of him -- advocated a separation between church and state, to protect religion from the government as much as government from religion.
It's naive to think that everything was simple in the 1950s, but it certainly is, today, a complex world with issues made up of many shades of gray. Summarizing these issues with simple slogans, not questioning the government, and not demanding the detail and nuance from the media that will help inform us is what gets us into situations like Iraq.
Jimbo, nothing would be possible without God. Do you remember him?
This is a diverse nation and people have a wide range of religious beliefs. Public policy should not be formed with any religion in mind.
Jimbo, liberalism is a disease and you will not be cured until you realize that you are sick. God belongs on our currency. "In God we trust". If you don't like it then move out of the country. Like it or not John McCain will be our next President. I agree that he isn't the ideal president but he is better than the other two chowder heads. You sick liberals that are going to vote for Obama are doing it for one reason and one reason only. it's because he is Black. That's the truth. You sick liberals feel guilty and think by voting for a Black man will make you feel better. You voted for Deval (great choice hahahaha. He comes to Massachusetts and say "together we can" and you liberals buy it. The only reason you voted for him was because of his skin color. You didn't care that he ripped thousands of minorities off when he was with Ameriquest. Well I hope you sleep better at night knowing that you voted for a man simply based on his skin color. NOw I hope he continues to sink Massachusetts deeper into debt.
It may be true that Obama and Hillary are simply too busy fighting each other off to concern themselves with McCain. It does provide the Republicans with ample opportunity at this point. However, this does not mean that McCain will automatically be the one to assume office for the next four years. It may increase his chances, but the fact is there will be a candidate chosen at the DNC and that candidate will be faced with the daunting task of trying to influence the other half of the Democratic side to become part of their campaign. It does sound near impossible, but if either should truly be the next president then they will be able to accomplish that particular task.
So here's a question: If Hillary Clinton manages to get the Democratic nomination and then loses to McCain, will she vilified in the same way that Ralph Nader was in the 2000 election?
n.starLuna -
To answer your question, if the scenario you are depicting happens as described, whether it be Clinton or Obama that wins the nomination, they will certainly be scrutinized by some for causing division among the party. That being said, the cry may not be as loud if the mass-defection from the democratic party occurs as predicted by some.
Post a Comment