even Jon Stewart is starting to worry: " I’ve watched this thing unfold from the start and here’s the great fear that I have: What if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may, and again I don’t know if I can physically do this, implode." === http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along? February 1, 2005 BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood. You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead. Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted. By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval. But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it? Americans cross own barrier If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling. For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility. I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces. Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders). I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well. Deciding democracy's worth On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing: Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something. Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly. Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well. I don't want to get carried away in the moment. Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world. Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.) In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out. Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people. And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam. Penance could be required But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them. Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain. Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region. So is the rest of the world. For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy. If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance. Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
The article is flawed from it's conception. We know the president was wrong, because bringing democracy to Iraq didn't become the main reason until Bush's other WRONG reasons didn't pan out for him. We know Bush was wrong from the beginning. But that shouldn't take away from the good that happened(the high turnout at their first attempt at an election). Good for the Iraqi people who went out to vote, and to try and seize their own destiny. That is great. It in no way means Bush was right.
Blade, Bush had a bigger agenda than WMD, or terrorism. He wants a stable Middle East, and the only way that can happen is if democracy is flourishing there. That is the play he made, and whether it was right or wrong will not be known for 20 or so years. History will decide whether it was a good move, but Bush just decided that doing nothing was not working, so he made his move. I personally think that Iraq will break out in civil war as soon as we leave. But, we shall see. DD
Have to ask your self this question, is the price (money and man power) to bringing democracy to Iraq worth it when it severely hampers our ability to help the many other poor and plagued nations in Africa (not to mention tsunammi victims), when it stretches our forces to the point that just a couple of months ago, both Iran and N. Korea were talking about nuclear research and we really couldn't do anything about it, that it breeds more ill will towards the U.S. in the middle east (though that could change if reconstruction starts to get better). I think the bottom line is this, if the reconstruction effort turned out to be great and the U.S. really rebuilt an Iraq that other people in the Middle East might want to be a part of, then the stabilization of the region would make this endevour and all it's expenses worth it. However, if U.S. built an Iraq in our image that might be / or twisted by extremist to be something a significant numbers of other middle east region might detest, then we might have some serious problems on our hands.
I think we all want democracy to flourish in the middle east, and in the world in general. Bush barely mentioned that as a reason for war prior to the war being started. Yes there were occasional mentions, but that wasn't even number 2 on the list of reasons until after his main reasons didn't pan out. In no speech did Bush ever say that if Saddam would democratize Iraq, then we wouldn't invade. He did say that if Saddam came clean with WMD's then he could avoid the invasion. Bush did tell the nation that he wanted Congress to authorize use of force so that he could keep the peace(i.e. force Saddam to come clean with WMD.) Bush did talk about what he would do to nations who harbored terrorists. But Bush NEVER said that if Sadam held legit elections we wouldn't invade. He never made that claim. Now, it can be argued that all along Bush's main agenda was to democratize Iraq, but of course anyone who argues that would have to admit Bush was lying when talking about reasons for war in the first place. A third possibility but similar to the first is that Bush did think there were WMD that is why he went and after that and the link to terror fell through, he decided to make the best out of his mistakes and put a heavy concentration on the democratization of Iraq angle. Of course none of those scenarios mean he was right all along. It means he was right with his third or fourth choice in reasons for invading Iraq.
DD, I don't think we will ever leave. It will be like Korea. We will be there forever. Hopefully, it will calm down enough where we can bring home our reservist and we won't have to hear about somebody dying everyday. However, don't be mistaken because we are going to be there for the long haul.
There's so many things wrong domestically that Bush has to be right for something. He's already keeping a nice cache of empty quotes for the history books.
God, it's like the build up to this war never happened. Months of history have just been erased from our collective memories. I don't think people even know what WMD stands for anymore. Democracy in Iraq wasn't a goal, it was supposed to be a byproduct.
that's pretty much the way i've figured it all along. i mean isn't it suppose to be some big neocon dream to democratize the middle east? what better place to start than a country we and the world have already had problems with and who we've already weakened over the years. now Bush couldn't just say "hey, we're gonna oust saddam preemptively to democratize the place." the american people and the world wouldn't have gone along with it at all. so he turned to the other saddam angle, WMD, that people might get behind. now i don't think they completely thought there would be none but i think they knew they were overplaying it to get enough support for the invasion to accomplish their real goal. we played it so hard to make sure we got some sort of support for the war and then finally went ahead with it. for that reason, i never had a big problem that the WMD thing never panned out, b/c i didn't think it was supposed to pan out. but of course, i could be wrong.
Or if you pass the test, just change the question. Yes, it's good that sadaam is out of power, yes, it's good that the people of Iraq risked their lives to vote in their first election in over 50 years, but that's not the reason Bush gave for going to war so it all means NOTHING! No blood for oil! Bush lied, thousands died! Stay focused, everyone. Stay on target.
Does this surprise you? Did people actually believe that it was about WMD? I always knew it was a bigger play, and that he was trying to stablilize the Middle East...but then I also watched Laurence of Arabia, and if you have seen that, you know that it is dang near impossible to get those people to agree on anything. I admire that Bush thinks he is doing the right thing, personally, I think he is wrong. Hopefully he is right and I am wrong. However, I think anyone that believed the WMD line etc, was being very naive.
That's fine if you believe it, and it may be correct. But that doesn't somehow make it OK, in my opinion. The man still lied so that he could have a war that HE and HIS FRIENDS wanted. Having a war because we have to, and have no other options left is one thing. Having a war because somebody wants to, is a crime against humanity. As for democratizing the middle east, Afghanistan was on its way. They should have kept the focus there. Make Afghanistan a stable democracy.
The same point I made above. If WMD wasn't the real reason, and he didn't believe what he was saying, then we come back to 'Bush Lied', and even worse he started a war because he wanted to, not because he had to, and it was the last option.
“If You Don't Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me.” (John Kerry, LA Times, 1/31/03) [Leaving Saddam Hussein] "unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable." (John Kerry, USA Today, 2/12/03) “I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …” (John Kerry, "All Things Considered”, 3/19/03)
It's really adorable to watch hardliners scramble like mad to justify these actions expose facto. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, Iraq having orderly, valid elections is a good thing.. this not news to ANYONE. But if these were the intial reasons to go to war with Iraq, we wouldn't be over there in the first place. It took a lie to get us over there (whether intentional or not), then the reasoning kept shifting once we were there to somehow validate what we are doing, or at least help conserative talking heads sleep at night. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy what is going right has gone right. But that alone would never justify what has taken place.
Basso, only one of these quotes actually suggests that Saddam has weapons. That being the last one, which, coincidentally, was taken by Kerry the day the war in Iraq officially started.
History will decide whether it was a good move, but Bush just decided that doing nothing was not working, so he made his move. The US's Middle East foriegn policy was p-o-ing the natives. The arms and $$$ the US was dumping into what we knew was a very political unstable region did not help either. But somehow most American who think of themselves as well intentioned while being being completely ignorant of our foriegn policies (and geography for that matter) grapple for a reason 9/11 happened and willed themselves into believing the superficial and misleading "the evil doers hate our love of freedom" line from the chucklehean-n-chief.
You should follow the lead of your President... "I think we can agree the past is over" "I have learned from mistakes I may or may not have made."
