Bush Haters vs. History The fog of antiwarriors. By J. D. Hayworth, R-Arizona The performance of the liberal media and the Democratic presidential candidates the past few weeks is proof positive that Bush hating addles the mind and rots the senses. With their reckless charges and the wholesale rewriting of recent history, the Left has gone completely off the rails, and it is time to start setting the record straight. Repeated ad nauseam is that charge that the Bush administration claimed the threat from Iraq was "imminent." Indeed, Gen. Wesley Clark has made that charge a major talking point. But it's rubbish. Here are the president's own words: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." Acting before a threat becomes imminent is the essence of the Bush Doctrine. That's why it's called preemption. Furthermore, there was never a single reason cited by the president to act against Saddam, but several, including human rights, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, regime change, and democratization. Still, the New York Times continues to distort the truth, and in the process contradicts itself. On September 15, the paper wrote that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were "the main rationale cited for war earlier this year." But earlier this year, just before the war started, the very same New York Times wrote that, "Many liberals have criticized the president's ever-changing rationales for war.…" What both have in common, of course, is that they are negative about the president. The Bush haters are also befuddled that most Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a role in the September 11 attacks. In fact, there is a definite 9/11-Saddam link, although probably not a direct one. Setting aside the question of how much contact there was between al Qaeda and Saddam, it was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that set off a chain of events that led inexorably to 9/11. Don't take my word for it. Here is what Time magazine wrote in the October 1, 2001 issue, published shortly after the 9/11 attacks: "for [bin Laden] the real casus belli is the U.S. troop presence in his country dating to the military buildup before the 1991 Gulf War precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait" [emphasis added]. In police terms, Saddam would be an accessory to the 9/11 attacks. While the Bush haters can blithely overlook Saddam initiating two wars that killed millions, using poison gas on Iranians and his own people, and issuing payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the American people are right to believe that Saddam ran a terrorist state that threatened American interests. Some of the Bush haters have even gone so far as to say the president has failed in Afghanistan. One particularly over-the-top example is Arizona Republic columnist Ricardo Pimentel, who recently wrote: "The warlords and the folks who harbored Osama — the Taliban — control nearly all of Afghanistan except for Kabul." While this may be holy writ among the Bush haters, not even bin Laden or Mullah Omar would believe that whopper. The fact is, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, Afghanistan is no longer one large terrorist training camp, a professional Afghan army has been established, the central government is growing in strength, and the Taliban exert no influence anywhere. Additionally, preliminary estimates by International Monetary Fund show the Afghan economy grew by 28 percent last year. In the end, however, Pimentel says we now have a duty to stay in Iraq because we created the "chaos" there. Several Democratic presidential candidates have said much the same. The reality is quite different. Recently I met with the Rev. Kenneth Joseph, an Assyrian minister who went to Iraq as a human shield but did a complete reversal when he saw the truth for himself. He reports that while not perfect, the situation in Iraq is improving daily and is much better than what is being reported here. He says the shops are stocked, the streets are bustling, and the people are hopeful. The reverend's views echo precisely the results of the first scientific poll in Iraq that shows the people there are optimistic about their future and grateful to America for their liberation. The chaos is in the media, not Iraq. The Bush haters are doing their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they want George W. Bush to fail, which coincidently won't happen unless America also fails. In a book published posthumously, bin Laden confidant Yussuf al Ayyeri warns his fellow fanatics that "American democracy" is the biggest threat to militant Islam, thus vindicating one of the president's central reasons for deposing Saddam. We have an historic opportunity to strike a strong blow against terrorism by establishing a democracy in the terrorist's backyard. We cannot let the opportunity pass. The terrorists see this for what it is: a threat to their very existence, which is why Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists. To this threat the president has rightly responded, "Bring 'em on!" The president understands it is better we have this inevitable battle in Iraq, not America. The costs of peace in Iraq are high but the costs of failure are higher. While some at the White House cringe at the notion this is World War IV (the Cold War being WWIII), that's exactly what it is. Americans were willing to shoulder enormous financial burdens to help bring down the Soviet Union. To win this new war, we must likewise be willing to "pay any price" to assure the success of liberty in Iraq — for the Iraqis and ourselves. To those who bemoan the cost of Iraq, I pose this simple question: Is it better to leave future generations with more debt, or more terrorism?
bigtexxx, I do sympathize with you wanting to respond to the perceived wealth of liberal propaganda posted around here, but I think you can find much better right wing work than this. For the quotation in question, this fellow ignores the obvious (and oft-stated) fact that Iraq was governed (and Saddam ruled) in a secular fashion. So the "militant Islam" angle would actually not support the president in this case. In fact, by again trying to link Saddam to terrorism, he actually refutes the recent words of our president. (Perhaps the article predates Bush's last public speech though). Just my 2 (liberal, fanatical) cents.
sigh. 1) He is not limiting "militant Islam" to Iraq. Having a stabilizing country in the region (in time) will show great benefits across the entire Middle East region. 2) Another nice spin job on what the President said. You guys are really good at slightly altering what was said, then accepting that new version of truth, and repeating cycle until you've convinced yourself how correct you are. The President said there was probably no connection between Saddam and 9/11, not all terrorism.
LMAO, if Saddam is an "accessory" to September 11 by virtue of his invasion of Kuwait, then, in "police terms" as the wingnut authors want us to use (its actually prosecutorial terms but I won't get 'em on that) (also, he isn't, because of causation and such, but whatever), then George I is at minimum a co-conspirator and an accomplice. So that dog doesn't hunt. Another painfully bad attempt by the chorus to rationalize the invasion of Sicily. Doomed yet again. Keep trying. EDIT: somebody call the Logic School and get JD HAywire some lessons! Why is it impossible for both these statements to be true? A: It's not, poor JD, better do some more book learnin'. BigT, this article is pure gar-bahhge. You can do better, there's plenty of more subtly deficient articles by better writers than this populist yokel. Try Hitchens, or at least somebody with half a brain. Deconstructing this is just too easy.
This ought to be fun. I am glad I have some time for this. There was one reason presented at a time. They had human rights and regime change from the get go. Everyone knew that Saddam was a bad guy who did bad things. There are many of those out there and there are many others, many of whom also commit much more terrorism than Saddam ever considered sponsoring. Only after they started claiming that they KNEW FOR A FACT that there were WMDs and that they knew where they were did many Americans start to come around. Then there was the uranium claim in the SOU and that is when I started buying the whole preemption thing. Up until then, I thought the weapons inspectors should be allowed to do their jobs and find whatever was in Iraq. They deliberately escalated the claims of threats posed by Iraq until they got enough support to start a war. The rationale changed for war until they found something that pushed everybody (in America) over the edge. They escalated the claims and exaggerated the evidence and they got the war that they wanted in the first place. Oh, come on! That is your big link to bin Laden? Osama bin Laden has been in bed with (and probably developing a hated for) the American government since the 80s when the CIA trained him in Afghanistan. We were PROTECTING Saudi Arabia for pity's sake. Twenty years ago he used poison gas and a decade ago he took over a bunch of oilfields with only roughnecks and sheiks protecting them. He was being policed and sanctioned for those actions and the weapons inspectors were disarming him. Do you know where that 28% is? Afghan heroin enriching the warlords who are now in control of the country. We can't even catch bin Laden (at least not until the RNC ). I certainly hope that all of this is true and that a decent government can come up in Iraq. I know we are in that country until it can be stabilized, but I believe the President needs to take his medicine and invite the UN to have an instrumental role in shaping this country and sharing the fiscal burden. Not true, one man (or one administration) can have a series of failures without bringing the country to its knees. That is why we have elections every so often, to give the people a chance to kick out people we think aren't doing the job right. We are already there, nobody (including the "Bush haters") is advocating to get the troops out of there by Haloween, and I think that most Americans are prepared to be there for a while. Nobody (including the Democratic candidates) has suggested leaving Iraq without trying to make this s*** sandwich into something better. It would have been even better to have this battle in Afghanistan, where we were already deployed and in control. What happened to the democratic government for them, anyway? I am willing to pay this price, but this administration and his cronies are not. They are cutting taxes, increasing spending, and trying to pay for a war on top of that. We need fiscal responsibility right now, not more debt to pass on to our children. WE should pay for Iraq and not leave that burden for generations to come. We can clean up the terrorist problem without building up debt if we tighten our belts and do what is necessary in wartime and pay enough in taxes to fund outlays. MY children are going to have to deal with that debt, Mr. Bush, Mr. Lay, Mr. Ebbers, Mr. bigtexx. While you get tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars richer, you rack up a debt that you can just up and leave when the going gets tough in this country. My children don't need that burden, heck, my first one won't be born until December and he will already be facing decades of debt given to him by this administration (among others).
Excellent points, andymoon. Very well said. BigT, I criticize Bush as much or more than anyone I know. But I do *not* hate the man. He's my President, and I respect him. But I will NOT let him manipulate and lie to Americans to justify a war that killed hundreds of Americans and endangered millions more. We deserve better than that. This has been a very, very bad week for the Bush Administration on all counts. He lied and was busted on it. That more Republicans aren't furious about this smacks of hypocricy. He *LIED* to us, and not about some blowjob; he lied about why we went to war. I can handle being lied to about taxes and deficits. But when I'm lied to about why Americans are coming home in body bags every week, I get pissed. It's because I love my country that I refuse to let it slide into mediocrity.
More prop-duh-gan-duh geared to mobilize Dubya's trailer park constituency. They're running scared already.
I would like to echo this, even as bigtexxx sighs himself into a lather. I would really and truly like to have a beer with George W. Bush, and I would be very happy to have him own my local baseball team. I do not at all hate him. Overall, I think Icehouse's point stands out as the most insightful and significant.
Find a logic that actually has syllogisms in it, and I'll worry more about it. I just don't understand. The title is "Bush Haters vs. History," yet text within in no manner supports the implied thesis. The truly amusing thing is that there are intelligent articles out there that support your position. I've read some of them. But you post one full of drivel. Here's a quick hint: if a congressman wrote it, the odds are very, very good that it's not worth thinking about. Go find one by a policy analyst, retired state/military official, or academic (either end of the spectrum), and the odds are at least better that it will be worth thinking about.
