Let us not forget this post 9/11 war has not, so far, been fought on our soil but we have taken the fight to them. Over there we are a ltttle more free to draw out the enemy and annihilate them not just turn them over to a hand wringing liberal court to set free. There is also less funding available for terrorists and less safe havens for training. We may not have gotten the bad guys but I'll bet their lives are a little more strenuous these days. I am a far right conservative and if you attack me or mine you had better get prepared for war on your turf if I can at all engineer it. More power to Bush.
It seems that you need to be reminded over and over that, before Bush assumed office, US policy was already committed to regime change in Iraq, according to the Iraqi Relations Act of 1998, passed with bipartisan support under Bush's predecessor. You also seem to need to be reminded that the state of war entered into in 1991 was never terminated - it was suspended under a repeatedly and flagrantly violated ceasefire, and maintained, among other things, by an expensive and dangerous military presence that included active aerial combat under the "no-fly zones" protecting Iraqis from their own government. Bush the candidate was just about exactly as complacent and willfully ignorant about threats from overseas as the rest of the nation. To his credit, he's responded to being hit squarely in the face with reality by adjusting his perspective. The same can be said for the majority of Americans - at least to this point in the 9/11 post-history. It cannot, unfortunately, be said for many of his critics.
Yes, we had a standing policy, and who is to say that it wasn't working? We never had to engage the Soviet Union directly to bring them down, did we? So what if it took nearly 40 years? Was there a time table? No one will deny that the Soviets represented a greater threat to national security than little old Iraq. But we had to militarily engage Hussein to bring him down? How do you know that what we were doing wasn't working, that containment and sanctions wouldn't have produced the results in due course of time? That the weight of sustaining his military structure wouldn't have led to an internal revolution? Sure we found mass graves, think we might find a few in the Soviet Union? Was the leadership in the Soviet Union any less dictatorial towards their people? The war with Iraq was waged and justified on the basis of WMD posing an immediate threat to our national security, not on the need for liberation of the people of Iraq. Flat out, liberating Iraq was not the message given to the people of America, nor was it the argument made to the U.N. by Powell. What you continue to dismisses as invalid is the bait and switch approach. I see this as something to be concerned with, and distrust a man who employs such machinations.
Our political leaders, informed observers, the populace at large - all had their input. The standing policy certainly wasn't "working" in the sense that SH's regime appeared substantially closer to being dislodged in 2001 than it did in 1998. Indeed, in many respects the opposite was true: Sanctions were increasingly controversial and under review, for the very good reason that they were harming the Iraqi people without seeming to have any major effect on the Baathist grip on power. A false comparison, of somewhat the same type as the "why not Zimbabwe or why not the Congo or why not Burma or why not East St. Louis?" argument. Iraq represented a unique set of circumstances, and the inability to recognize such distinctions allows only for a politics of the impossible and the absurd. No, that is your oft-repeated, self-serving oversimplification. The war was fought in the context of multiple justifications and considerations, something which the American people generally seem to have much less difficulty recognizing than you do. You should perhaps consider re-reading the transcripts of major Administration statements on the war and its justifications, though my efforts in the past in this regard haven't seemed to have done much good. Previously, I analyzed Bush's State of the Union address in detail, but you seem to prefer to focus on Powell's UN speech. I suggest that you consider reading a transcript, and seeing for yourself exactly what relative weight was given to "immediate" threats. A fair reading, in my opinion, will show a discussion of multiple threats and potential threats, alongside other legal and moral justifications for acting. I continue to dismiss accusations of a "bait and switch" because I consider it to be a canard. I suggest that, in addition to refreshing your recollection of Powell's presentation, you also read the FrontPage symposium that I linked above.
Our political leaders, informed observers, the populace at large - all had their input. The standing policy certainly wasn't "working" in the sense that SH's regime appeared substantially closer to being dislodged in 2001 than it did in 1998. Indeed, in many respects the opposite was true: Sanctions were increasingly controversial and under review, for the very good reason that they were harming the Iraqi people without seeming to have any major effect on the Baathist grip on power. Sanctions were certainly controversial, so? There remains no evidence that they weren't working in the long run. It is common for a leadership to try to tighten their grip as they get closer and closer to the end. If we apply the same time frame to the Soviet Union that we did to Iraq (who had not engaged any military conflict with their neighbors since 1990) 13 years, that would have put us in military conflict with the Soviet empire around the early 60's...hmm, Bay of Pigs anyone? There remains no evidence that it was necessary to go to war when we did, without the support of the U.N. Or am I missing some evidence? Take out the WMD issue, are you telling me that Bush would have been successful in gaining sufficient support to launching an overthrow of a government who did not constitute an immediate threat to our national security? This really is not complicated. I supported the effort as Bush & company lead us to believe Iraq had WMD and were funding and supporting terrorism that was a threat to our national interests. Now lacking evidence to support those claims, I have my doubts that a war was necessary....and no, I don't justify it after the fact like some do. We have been over this before, you subscribe to an end justifies the means, I don't in matters of policy. A false comparison, of somewhat the same type as the "why not Zimbabwe or why not the Congo or why not Burma or why not East St. Louis?" argument. Iraq represented a unique set of circumstances, and the inability to recognize such distinctions allows only for a politics of the impossible and the absurd. A valid comparison. Either a government represents a threat to our national security sufficient to engage military conflict or it doesn't it. No, that is your oft-repeated, self-serving oversimplification. The war was fought in the context of multiple justifications and considerations, something which the American people generally seem to have much less difficulty recognizing than you do. Self serving? Simply stated, remove the threat of WMD and Hussein financed and supported terrorists who threaten our national interests, and it does become simple. Was the rationale for a war, excluding those two key factors, sufficient to justify a war? I don't believe so. You should perhaps consider re-reading the transcripts of major Administration statements on the war and its justifications, though my efforts in the past in this regard haven't seemed to have done much good. Previously, I analyzed Bush's State of the Union address in detail, but you seem to prefer to focus on Powell's UN speech. I suggest that you consider reading a transcript, and seeing for yourself exactly what relative weight was given to "immediate" threats. A fair reading, in my opinion, will show a discussion of multiple threats and potential threats, alongside other legal and moral justifications for acting. I am aware of justifications beyond WMD, those stated, and those not stated, i.e. redemption of George Bush Sr., and oil interests. So what? I am not saying that there were not reasons given, just that without the WMD or terrorism angle, the reasons were insufficient to convince most Americans it was the right thing to do. I continue to dismiss accusations of a "bait and switch" because I consider it to be a canard. I suggest that, in addition to refreshing your recollection of Powell's presentation, you also read the FrontPage symposium that I linked above. Dismiss all you like, cogent factual arguments, or common sense discussions work better than blanket dismissals, don't they? Just because you personally dismsiss it, doesn't mean that is not exactly what happened. My bottom line point, is that if a war was necessary, a case could have been made on fact, not questionable intelligence. There was no question in WWII when we entered the war who was the enemy. That Hussein went from non factor to public enemy number one is what I question, and am still open to evidence to prove that he was in fact so threatening that it required immediate action, sending a quarter of a million troops to Iraq, risking the lives of soldiers then and now, spending over 70+ billion with no immediate end or resolution in sight, etc. I had no problem with the efforts in Afghanistan, so please don't lump me with the Wild's or the MSFE's of the world. I am just an American who believes I was fed a line of crap in order to sway my opinion pro war in Iraq, and now has doubts that the administration didn't know exactly what they were doing when they did just that. Really, the bottom line is that war with Iraq was a non issue pre 9/11, and the only reason it happened was because you had a panicked electorate. Take away the WMD, and terrorism, imagine Bush suggesting a war pre 9/11 with Iraq, and you can see clearly how important the WMD and terrorism angle was to his success in waging war. It seems so simple and obvious to me, that a request after the fact for proof of the allegations is warranted, and when someone who is questioned for proof gets their back up so much, it really seems odd to me. Isn't that our right to question, when evidence is lacking? Isn't it human nature to doubt when an emphasis is made of the nature of a problem, yet the problem can't be found?
Yes, you have mentioned this before. Called me "middle of the road" and "indecisive". And I am sure that is how it appears to you. Because I go issue by issue. In your world: Left=Bad Right=Good Democrat=Bad Republican=Good Liberal=Bad Conservative=Good Clinton=Evil Bush=Angelic Again, you live in a world of black and white. Or appear to. That is not how the world is. Me, I am glad I can be "middle of the road". It leaves my brain open to opposing views, and I can then decide on a piecemeal basis what my politics are. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats and Independents. To me, people who vote the party line are just robots. And luckily for you, most people are not quite so closed minded. There are more registered Democrats in the US, but somehow, we DO get Republican candidates voted into the White House. How does this happen? ++++++++++++++ Optional777...Gee, Jeb Bush and Enron? GET OUT!!!!! You expect anyone to believe THAT!!!!???? (I forgot when I said "Where's Waldo, where's Saddam and where's UBL to add WHERE"S NEIL BUSH????...and why is HE not in public office?) Peace, RS
No, this is now, by my count, the fourth time that you have attached the word "indecisive" to yourself. I have never done so. Indeed, I haven't, until lately, attempted to offer any particular characterization of you or your political position at all. I at most referred to a range of suspicions, and have raised questions as to whether you have any right to the costume of objectivity that you like to put on. In my opinion, it doesn't fit you. You claim to go issue by issue. It seems to me that you go kneejerk by kneejerk. It suited you today to suggest that Bush sought war for "fun and profit" and out of "bloodlust," while in the same virtual breath you were self-righteously condeming others for unfair and extreme attacks on Clinton. You haven't been paying attention, or have been paying the same selective attention that you usually pay, just as you persist in the same hypocrisy you've demonstrated previously. Instead of even considering that you may have violated your own repeatedly stated precepts, it suits you instead to associate me with one or another of your favorite ideological opponents. Once again, you try to back off into your pretentions of being the objective observer of gray areas and realism, but accusing Bush of pursuing his polices for fun, profit, and bloodlust doesn't strike me as the language of the wise defender of the "middle-of-the-road."
I stand corrected. My memory isn't what it used to be I suppose. Blame it on age. You are right. I mistakenly thought you used the word "indecisive". When in truth you used "uncertain". Sorry for the gross negligence on my behalf. HUGE difference in meaning. RS
Oh and just for the record, within the past year or more I have gone from a hard-core liberal to a more moderate conservative. Why? Well, mostly because when I saw all the crap that a lot of liberals were pulling before the war, it really upset me. People were saying, "Don't fight -- peace is good, etc," but what a lot of them failed to realize is that peace was convenient ONLY for them, not for the hundreds that were being tortured by Saddam on a weekly basis. So it occured to me after a very long sit-down with myself that liberals may be the most heartless of all, because many of the positions they support are generally self-destructive in the long run. Want a low-income family to get out and work? Welfare isn't an incentive. Just out of curiousity (and I am by no means old enough to know this), were the liberals the ones that spit in the face of our Vietnam vets when they got home? I proudly support my president and my country and the soldiers that are over in Afganistan and Iraq right now. It is so easy to forget about them so I try to take a moment out each day to give them a mental thanks.
As regards the differences between Iraq and the Soviet Union, you're neglecting several hundred divisions of the Red Army, and several thousand ICBMs, among other things. As for the timing issue, your formulation again neglects the existence of a legal state of war between the US and Iraq prior to the pressing of the issue at the UN. You may also recall that some in the Administration wanted an ultimatum and a commitment to direct military action much earlier, but that timing naturally became a political and practical concern. One perceived risk in going to the UN, as was borne out, was that the discussion would be sidetracked and distorted, and that other actors - such as Saddam Hussein, Jacques Chirac, and Hans Blix - would attempt to seize control of the timetable, even while American resolve was tested and political passions on both sides were inflamed. Explaining the other factors that went into the issue of timing would require a recitation of the entire political, strategic, and tactical context. You can't "take out the WMD issue," and not only because the issue even in the narrowest sense of "immediate threat" is far from settled. Prior to the armed "inspection" of the country that the US has initiated, no one outside Iraq knew all of the details regarding Iraq's WMDs, but all of the leading intelligence services in the world, including those of nations that opposed US action, agreed that Iraq did possess WMDs and agents in significant quantities when last inspected, and had given no serious evidence that it had disposed either of them or of the capability to produce more of them. For the Bush Administration to have argued the issue differently in any substantial way than it did would have required it to speak contrary to its own beliefs - whose fundamental precepts were shared even by the chief opponents of US policy. The core argument regarding WMDs, and the basis for what was intended to be the "last chance" inspections, was stated explicitly and famously by Condoleeza Rice as "we can't wait for a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." After Gulf War I, the burden was on Hussein to remove any doubt. After 9/11, the US policy became that such doubt would no longer be tolerated. At some time between 1998 and March 2003, Iraq may have disposed of (or merely have securely hidden) the particular WMDs and agents catalogued when the last pre-Bush inspection regime was halted. Without certain knowledge that Iraq had done so, and of how it had done so, to treat the regime as presenting anything other than an "immediate threat" would have been foolhardy. Even if Iraq had secretly destroyed all of its WMDs, it retained a WMD capacity - as recent discoveries have begun to demonstrate - and it persisted in a clear pattern of deception and defiance. It's impossible to argue about how things might have gone differently if the Bush Administration had possessed clear intelligence of no immediate WMD threat, because such a situation would have had to presume many different elements within the overall context - including a much more cooperative regime in Iraq. I submit that your characterization of my position as "end justifies the means" is totally inaccurate. A simplistic and totally unrealistic view of the world, that, aside from ignoring the differences between threats of different typses, also ignores the different kinds of direct and indirect responses that may be available or preferable. Again, the thought experiment of removing WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 from the equation is frivolous - they were all principle variables of the equation, and coud not be removed without imagining an entirely different world than the one in which we live.