Quote of the day
posted at 9:20 pm on January 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“[I]f Iraq overall represents a massive stain on Bush’s record, his decision to increase America’s troop presence in late 2006 now looks like his finest hour. Given the mood in Washington and the country as a whole, it would have been far easier to do the opposite. Politically, Bush took the path of most resistance. He endured an avalanche of scorn, and now he has been vindicated. He was not only right; he was courageous…
Today … it is conservatives who have been proven wrong again and again. Politically and intellectually, the right is discredited, and the arguments of its rump minority in Congress will be easy to dismiss. Liberal self-confidence is sky-high.
That’s why it’s important to admit that Bush was right about the surge. Doing so would remind Democrats that no one political party, or ideological perspective, has a monopoly on wisdom. That recognition can be the difference between ambition — which the Obama presidency must exhibit — and hubris, which it can ill afford.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sekhmet on January 18, 2009 at 2:21 AM
If that was the rationale then that is the case that should have been made. Essentially you’re argument is that since removing Saddam was for the best, whatever argument managed to motivate the US public to do so was justified.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:29 AM
FDR certainly would have approved…
18-1 on January 18, 2009 at 2:36 AM
Alex,
With all due respect, I don’t think you get the war at all. I completely respect the argument that we didn’t need to go to war in Iraq because it wasn’t immediately necessary, but I am so tired of people saying that Bush lied about the WMD. Bill Clinton said the same thing years earlier and after reading his speeches, Madeline Albright’s speeches, etc., you would think Saddam was the next Adolf Hitler. Even Madeline Albright said in an interview (in the Washington Times, I believe) that she didn’t agree with the TIMING of the war. All you have to do is read about the numerous confrontations that the U.S. had with Iraq in almost EVERY year of the Clinton presidency to see that at least they, along with countries on the security council and the U.N. and Kofi Annan (along with his predecessor; I don’t know his name). Heck, I read it in a Worldbook Encyclopedia Yearbook. Every single year in foreign relations included confrontations with Iraq. That sounds stupid, but I digress. What the U.N. and the United States differed in was how to confront Saddam Hussein, not whether he had WMD. He refused to disarm and/or show the he had disarmed. Remember the story about how he told his scientists to pretend that they were still working on WMD? It is endlessly frustrating to see liberals and paleoconservatives talk/write about how Bush lied us into war. There is nothing wrong with saying that the war wasn’t necessary, there’s even a certain wisdom in it, but don’t ever call Bush a liar on it. I really wish that this argument would finally be put to rest. It is an assassination on the man’s character, and it needs to stop.
NathanG on January 18, 2009 at 2:37 AM
Nathan,
I’m not calling him a liar. I think he must have convinced himself Iraq did have WMD or else it would have been completely irrational to have made the claims he did. That doesn’t change the fact that he was wrong and that he bears responsibility for it.
I remember the case the Clinton administration made against Iraq in the run-up to Desert Fox very well. I remember Cohen on MTP with his bag of sugar. Bush also ran in 2000 on reversing the general trend of the Clinton administration toward foreign intervention and nation building.
The argument that 9/11 changed anything except what was going on in the minds of certain pols is totally fallacious. The possibility of such an attack always existed whether the US government knew it or not. What was prudent US policy toward Iraq on 9/10 was no different than what it was on 9/12. Iraq had no proven involvement with 9/11 nor with any other Al-Qaeda operation.
I will say that I don’t believe Bush and co. believed Iraq had WMD which he could deliver strategically to a target in Europe in North America. They exploited 9/11 at every turn in order to implicitly suggest a connection and to suggest Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US. Neither was true and if conservatives in the G.O.P. had remained as skeptical about Bush’s proposed adventures as they had about Clinton’s, much could have been avoided.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:49 AM
Such as an Obama presidency.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:50 AM
I give it about six months and then, when the manure has hit the fan in some third-world hellhole, when Obama is trying to decide how to look presidential while voting present, and the world looks to the US for action, there are going to be a whole lot of liberals, who are very vocal right now, spinning in little circles, whining and stamping their feet while desperately looking for somebody to blame that isn’t one of theirs.
I hope George W. leans back in his chair on his veranda, shaded from the hot Texas sun, takes a sip of a cool beer, and grins inwardly, knowing that his replacement doesn’t have the balls to make the tough decisions.
Yoop on January 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM
Bush was goaded into invading Iraq by blood thirsty war mongers like these:
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM
They exploited 9/11 at every turn in order to implicitly suggest a connection and to suggest Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.
Except when he stated in the State of the Union Address in 2003 that Iraq was not an imminent threat, but we should not wait for it to be so.
NathanG on January 18, 2009 at 2:54 AM
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM
And this proves what? Except that the Bush administration was as clueless as the Democrats in Congress and the Clinton administration?
Granted the support of Democrats proves he didn’t concoct the alleged Iraqi threat in the basement of his ranch. Still, how does it make him any less wrong.
Explaining one’s mistake by showing that others shared it isn’t a defense. It’s actually fairly pathetic.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:56 AM
NathanG on January 18, 2009 at 2:54 AM
True. Although I believe he also argued that the U.S. couldn’t wait any longer, which implies that immediate action was necessary. Evidently,it wasn’t.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM
Alex….first, you claim that most people thought before the war that Iraq did not have WMD. This was not “obvious” to anyone with any authority whatsoever. Everyone in Washington believed he had WMD.
Second, WMD was not the only reason we went into Iraq. After the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceasefire agreement that said if he ever attempted to weaponize again, the US maintained the right to take him out. Those are terms that he agreed upon.
This was not an invasion, this was simply finishing out the terms of the treaty. Every intelligence agency believed he had weapons. Just last year, Iraq managed to sell some leftover Yellowcake uranium to a Canadian company. What the hell was the stuff doing in Iraq if he wasn’t attempting to weaponize? It wasn’t just like we picked out a random country on the map and said, “Let’s take them out.” We have a history with Iraq, we had a treaty with their leader that our intelligence believed he violated, and, after 9/11, Clinton’s “containment” efforts simply were not good enough by Bush’s standards. It was not a “colossal screwup.” We replaced a genocidal dictator who funded suicide bombers with a functioning constitutional democracy in less than a decade.
jimmy the notable on January 18, 2009 at 2:58 AM
They were not clueless as the preponderance of evidence said that Saddam did have WMD and in fact he had used them before. The preponderance of evidence says that lowering high BP is a way to increase longevity. If it turns out later that this is not so would that mean that doctors are clueless?
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:04 AM
jimmy the notable on January 18, 2009 at 2:58 AM
It was evident to certain US and British officials that Iraq did not have anything other than antiquated battlefield WMD from pre-Desert Storm which he had little or no capacity to actually deliver to a foreign target. Read the Robin Cook’s resignation speech as British Foreign Secretary right before the war.
Re the terms of the ’91 ceasefire, I agree with you. I’m not arguing it was illegal.
I’m glad Iraq has a semi-constitutional democracy. Truly. I’m not glad at how it came about. I’m not some sort of limp-wristed pacifist. Honestly, I think a better rationale could be made for Vietnam than Iraq. What I’m oppposed to is rash, unnecessary wars and slipshod evidence presented to the American people.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 3:04 AM
I hope that you are not an MD. If you are you had best have lots of insurance.
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:07 AM
You don’t know much about the Vietnam war, do you?
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Sometime, when you get a chance, read “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.” by H.R. McMaster
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:12 AM
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Perhaps not but I dare say I’ve read much more about it than the average person.
There was a legitimate concern that the fall of SVN could lead to a projection of Communist power (variably Russian or Chinese) throughout SEA. South Vietnam was also a functioning, independent state allied to the US prior to US military intervention.
Iraq was about creating a new state from scratch without any larger strategic imperative (the red herring about Islamic terrorism notwithstanding).
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 3:15 AM
I will try to read that at some point. In turn, you should consider reading “A Better War” by Lewis Sorley.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 3:17 AM
Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954
The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater. The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.
- The US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:18 AM
Never heard of Lewis Sorley. H.R. McMaster is a West Point graduate and now a General. What are Lewis Sorley’s credentials?
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:21 AM
I’ll admit that, in retrospect, the invasion was built on faulty intelligence. But we don’t have a time machine. You have to admit that George Bush did more than simply “pull the car out of the ditch.” He pulled the car out of the ditch when every member of congress and all of his Generals were saying “Abandon it! Abandon it!” He found a General who came up with a real good plan and it worked, against all odds. That did take courage. If all of the people who thought Iraq had WMDs were fools before the war, then everyone who said the war was lost and, after that, the surge would never work are also fools. And for me, I’d rather get annoyed at the fools who attempted to get us to surrender than the fools who thought we should defend ourselves.
jimmy the notable on January 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM
Well, I’ll refrain from engaging you in a full debate about Vietnam so as not to highjack this thread but I must say I find it a little ironic that you seem to feel the complicated rationale for intervention in Vietnam was obviously fallacious and yet you’re A-okay with the discredited rationale for Iraq. Interesting. Well, I bid you goodnight sir.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM
http://www.tuvy.com/resource/books/authors/s/Sorley_Lewis.html
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 3:24 AM
To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are.
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:28 AM
His credentials do seem in order, but does he think that the Vietnam war was a good idea?
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:35 AM
You’re calling him something–gullible or stupid or both.
Every intelligence agency in the Western World believed Saddam had a huge WMD program, not just President Bush…and he wasn’t wrong!
Those weapons were either destroyed, hidden where we can’t find them and/or moved into Syria.
Cohen was an idiot.
I don’t believe Bush made that statement as a critique of Clinton, but rather as a indication of his personal style of presidential leadership (although Clintoon did get us into Bosnia/Kosovo and on the wrong side!).
He said this, of course, before America was attacked and 3,000 of us were murdered.
???
What 9/11 proved was that our policy up until that day was wrong and needed to be changed.
Don’t look now, but the first World Trade Center bombers in 1993 were all Iraqi.
There’s good evidence to show that the OKC bombing of the Murrah Building was done by the Iraqi Republican Guard, which would mean that Tim McVeigh had become a convert to radical Islam while deployed in Operation Desert Storm.
Saddam had a working relationship with OBL since 1993, also, when Al Queda was run out of Sudan.
They were working on it…and the Iranians have taken up where the Iraqis left off.
The U.N. inspectors were going to give Saddam a pass (remember the sham of the “oil-for-food” program?) and Saddam was ready to ramp back up all of his WMD programs, including nukes, once they lifted the sanctions.
How quickly the Left forgets that Saddam had a nuke reactor in 1981–20 years before 9/11–to jump start his nuke program and which the Israelis took out for us–thank you, Israel!
I’m delighted that we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and overthrew the Taleban (still a work in progress) and Saddam.
My only regret is that we didn’t do the same in Iran and North Korea.
Jenfidel on January 18, 2009 at 3:39 AM
Look, most of the case for Iraq was out for all the public to see. The minute that Saddam Hussein intentionally dumped over 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf (It wasn’t more because WE stopped the flow) and lit just about every single oil well in Kuwait on fire, all as he was retreating in one of the most humiliating military defeats in all of human history, it was apparent to anyone with a brain that he could not remain in control of one of the most strategically important areas of the world. Period. Once you see someone exercising a scorched Earth policy like that, you no longer have any questions. After 9/11, our threat threshold was lowered by a great deal, as is normal behavior, and Saddam Hussein’s threat was clearly above our tolerable levels, even though it hadn’t moved. This is how things work.
As to the WMD, which was only the main case because of the azzwipe UN (thnaks, Powell, you moron), which couldn’t even be brought to defend its own declarations and resolutions. There were dozens of reasons for the war, but WMD was for the international crew – all of whom were convinced (along with ourselves) that he certainly had a bucket load.
Now, as the WMD’s that got cleaned up because of the Iraq War, well that ended up being much larger than anyone ever anticipated, only that it wasn’t in Iraq. It was much, much larger. Because we went into Iraq, and scared the living sh!t out of the arabs, Libya ended up capitulating and coughing up its whole nuclear operation, which included such a deep look into the AQ Khan network that professionals were shocked at its size. Now that was real WMD and it would not have been gotten without having gone into Iraq.
I’ve got lots and lots of problems with Bush, but taking Iraq down was absolutely necessary (the proof at home is that the libs, generally, kept their mouths shut from 9/12 until Saddam was yanked out of that spider-hole, at which point they felt safe enough to start up, again, with their seditionist rhetoric). Where Bush went wrong was in not just taking the oil fields and gulf access, and leaving the Iraqis to run around in the desert. We could have helped them, if they ASKED for help, but I would never give any gifts for nothing in return, out there. Those cultures don’t handle that sort of thing well (kind of like how the British found the gift-giving protocols of some islanders to be shockingly dangerous, if one didn’t know what one was doing). But, Bush went the way of attrition and kept a lid on things, so far.
Meanwhile the dems and libs who bitch about Iraq (most of whom voted for the war because we all felt the danger) are just full of sh!t. We have records and videos and writings of the time that tell the whole story. I’m amazed that people forget history faster, these days, as we have more powerful ways of recording it – and it is recorded.
progressoverpeace on January 18, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Now there I must agree with you and personally I liked that Bush better.
Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.
- George W. Bush (October 11 2000)
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 3:47 AM
Robin Cook?!?
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!
What a Leftoid idiot…and now a deceased one.
And he was going against the deployment of British forces by his own party’s PM, Blair!
Not really: Vietnam was a different rationale not a better one: to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia, which we did, even though we were not allowed a decisive victory.
The WOT is a Jacksonian Democratic war, launched because we were attacked on our own soil and 3,000 of our civialians were murdered.
The Iraq front of the WOT was neither “rash” nor “unnecessary”– the nation and the Congress debated the war for 18 months, hardly what you’d call “rash.”
And I believe–as did a bi-partisan Congress who voted for it–that it was completely necessary.
President Bush is not the kind of president to send our brave men and women of the military into combat if it isn’t necessary and there’s not a soldier that’s served there that will tell you that the mission wasn’t necessary and probably most American civilians, when it comes to that.
Face it, we’ve all slept a little more soundly knowing that Saddam wasn’t free to plot a jihadi death for the Great Satan.
Jenfidel on January 18, 2009 at 3:54 AM
U.S. War College member insists Islam does not “promote kidnappings, beheadings and other unlicensed hostile actions”
One therefore has no choice but to conclude that Ms Zuhur is being either disingenuous (taqiyya/kitman) or ignorant (sign of the times), or blindly utopian (typical academic) or all of the above — either way, not fit to instruct post-9/11 America’s forthcoming guardians. It’s bad enough that this sort of fluff counts as “authoritative” around government types; but that it has also come to permeate one of the last bastions of American security, the U.S. Army War College — just consider its name — is beyond ominous.
MB4 on January 18, 2009 at 4:08 AM
crr6
“He was also wrong to go to war in the first place”
Really?
Seriously, you don’t think we should have gone on the offensive against Terrorist?
DSchoen on January 18, 2009 at 5:32 AM
Not only was he right about the surge, he was right to go into Iraq in the first place.
It is only the disgusting willingness of liberals to take a unified decision to go to war and turn it into a political weapon against one man that has changed.
He was also right when he warned them about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the impending mortgage crisis and what it might lead to. They were to busy chanting ‘Bush Lied’ and holding silly impeachment hearings in the basement to listen to his warnings.
God Bless President Bush!
Mr Purple on January 18, 2009 at 6:09 AM
All this other stuff aside, this was a good article. There was a good point. Thinking that one side is eternally right in perpetuam is dangerous. Reagan knew this but of course he had the Scoop Jacksons and Charlie Wilsons of this world to help on the other side.
Squid Shark on January 18, 2009 at 6:25 AM
Ummmmmmmmmmm…………I would have to throw the BS flag on this statement.
Squid Shark on January 18, 2009 at 6:27 AM
Iraq was NEVER a threat to the United States of America! NEVER! Not during Gulf War 1 or Now! I’m a Conservative who voted for Bush twice because the Democrats offered such lame choices but Iraq was a huge mistake and should not have been sold to the American People!
sabbott on January 18, 2009 at 6:44 AM
DEMOCRATS FOR THE WAR….BEFORE THE WAR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
Why doesn’t the main stream media hold them to this?
afotia on January 18, 2009 at 7:13 AM
The words of a jackass, and I’m not asking for a pardon of my use of that term.
The ONLY thing in that paragraph that is approaching some accuracy is the last sentence.
The Left continues to pummel the Right as to that self-confidence factor — it’s what the Left does, ridicule and taunt others and try to humiliate and reduce stature when someone’s not among the Left — but it does not reflect “self-confidence” on the Left so much as it reflects madness and amorality. They’re just being more blatant about being mad and amoral and are enjoying openly both at this time.
The Right’s not been “proven wrong again and again,” we’ve been proven right. On many issues or, rather, the issues that are most motivating to the Right, about which the Left is continued to be shown to lack understanding or to be simply crassly wrong about.
Winning this Election wasn’t a landslide event, it isn’t an Earth-moving or miraculous happening, it’s just the Democrats squeaking into office on more hubris than leadership.
AND NOTE the dismal “popularity” ratings of the Pelosi-Reid/Democrat majority Congress. Even their own kind very often can’t stand one another.
THE ELECTION WAS WON by the Left STEALING AND ADAPTING THE RIGHT’S SUCCESSFUL METHOD: win the election/s and don’t get bogged down in in-fighting.
The Right, this last two Elections (Congress and Presidential) lost by getting bogged-down in in-fighting, AND, by not pummeling the Leftwing media and their ongoing propaganda work on behalf of Democrats.
S on January 18, 2009 at 8:23 AM
.
Iraq was never a DIRECT threat to the USofA, but he was an indirect threat and a threat to our allies, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. You may not like them(I certainly don’t) but they are our allies and deserve our aid.
Besides freeing people from tyrrany is the Christian thing to do.
Don Carne on January 18, 2009 at 8:35 AM
I was not a big fan of going into Iraq in 2003, I didn’t think that Saddam was a direct threat at that time and I said at the time that “George just lost his second term”.
As it turns out I was wrong on both points. Arguments about whether Iraq posed a direct threat to the USA are lame. This was a strategic move in the war on terror against the Islamo Fascist enemy and it worked and worked well. George let out his real intentions just once during a press conference when asked about the fact that jihadi’s were pouring into Iraq from all over the region. His words, “Bring Them On”! I woke up to the real purpose of the battle of Iraq at that point. This enemy typically hides and fights on ground of his choosing (usually ours and against civilians). A US presence in the middle of wild eyed jihadi country could not be tolerated by these cretins and it brought them into the open where we could kill them by the bushel basket full. And we did! At the same time we managed to improve our image somewhat in the Arab world by helping to establish a democracy in that area. And time will tell, but I believe that more and more the Arabs will see Iraq as a positive development as they prosper and continue to gain freedoms that they have never experienced.
In hind site, Iraq may have been Bush’s greatest decision.
conservnut on January 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM
That is the most warped and inaccurate piece of leftist donkey dung I’ve yet seen on this board. Your joy is only temporary and your Marxist regime will be replaced in the next 5 years.
rplat on January 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM
AP- WTH? No, no,no…not conservatives, Republicans: the Arlen Specters, Dick Lugars and Norm Colemans. Republicans, AP, Republicans. Not conservatives.
Again, AP, Conservatives have never been discredited. This loser crop of Republicans certainly has.
So, I’d ask that you not confuse conservatives with Republicans anymore than you’d confuse gold with iron pyrite.
Amendment X on January 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
MB4,
You are a treasure…
jerrytbg on January 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
This amazes me how unread the public is…this type of total lack of comprehension is apalling.
Literally every nation, including the middle east was convinced Iraq had WMD’s…including our past leaders.
This has been discussed and documented time and again…yet some yahoo still state “he must have convinced himself”…no he didn’t convince himself, the evidence and testimony all pointed to it, it was a rational well thought out decision, based on world wide mis-information…or the WMD’s which were used on their own people were removed…sheesh, learn to read, and use that information accurately…double sheesh…
right2bright on January 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
liberals have been so wrong about so much in regards to Iraq it is amazing that they still want to push dis-credited
drivel that “Bush lied” and “Iraq is the worst foreign policy disaster of modern times”.
If expecting a defeated country during the time of war to abide by it’s surrender agreement is “bad policy”,than yes,liberals are right.
If it is wrong to take out terrorist dictators that rape,murder,torture,start wars of aggression with their neighbors,kill hundreds of thousands of people with WMD’s,commit genocide on a scale of 600,000 to 1.2 million of their own people,and thumb their noses at over 15 UN resolutions while taking bribes from the UN and continuing to build up their WMD program,than yes,liberals are right.
If committing every resource and strategy available to win a war that democrats and Republicans voted to send our Soldiers off to is wrong,than yes,liberals are right.
liberals stated that Shia,Sunni,and Kurds would never get along and that it was impossible for them to unite in a representative government.They were wrong.
liberals stated that we were only after their oil.Now thay are complaining that we are not paying for the cost of the war with ,guess what,their oil.
liberals stated the war in Iraq was lost,even going to the
Senate floor and announcing it.They were wrong.
liberals stated that the surge would be a colossal failure
and would change nothing.They were wrong.
liberals stated that Bush lied to get us into war.
As usual,they were wrong:
9/11 commission report stated that intelligence was not manipulated and that Bush did not lie.
2003 Senate intelligence report stated that intelligence was not manipulated and that Bush did not lie.
The British Butler report stated that intelligence was not Manipulated and neither Bush/Blair lied.
Duelfer Report stated that Saddam still maintained dual Machinery to produce Biological and Chemical weapons.
Still maintained the scientist and could have rebuilt stockpiles within months of the UN leaving.
Saddam himself stated this days before he died and maintained that he was simply waiting the inspection process out to restart his WMD program.
The 2008 Senate intelligence report chaired by a majority of democrats came to even stronger conclusions:
WaPo: Bush “substantiated by intelligence” - UPDATED
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/09/wapo-bush-substantiated-by-intelligence/
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
And this part is another gem that liberals have been dead wrong about:
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
As stated before,Bush at no time said that Iraq was involved with 9/11,in fact he made it plain that they weren’t.But just like the “imminent threat” line that liberals like to push,super smart liberals insist that the big ol’ dumb Bush tricked them by “insinuating or talking about them at the same time”.
Great,now Bush is responsible for the lack of comprehension
and idiocy of liberals and their thought process’s.
The bottom line is,that two major sponsors of terrorism(Iraq/Afghanistan) and terrorist leadership that was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people,including Americans,are now
defeated and the countries are now going through the growing pains of starting representative governments and free societies.
It’s called Freedom.
Baxter Greene on January 18, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Here is an excellent article that highlight the idiocy of the liberals bogus arguments about Iraq:
Play President, Real Threats
By Michael J. O’Shea
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/play_president_real_threats.html at September 26, 2008 – 12:28:10 AM EDT
No wonder President Clinton said to the American public on December 16, 1998:
Dam#,you tell them Bill!!!!
More inspections, President Clinton warned, were pointless:
Bill is just sooooooooooooooooo intelligent.
I thought it was “Bush lied,People died”
According to liberal theory,”Clinton lied and people died”too.
Two months after Saddam fell, Ambassador Blix reported:
Even with troops massing at Iraq’s borders in 2003, chief UN inspector Hans Blix concluded:
But….But …But…sanctions were working.
Baxter Greene on January 18, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Here are two more articles that address the same liberal idiocy:(ISG was certainly no puppet of the Bush Administration)
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Regime Strategic Intent
Key Findings
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
The Duelfer report’s case for war in Iraq
By Michael Barone
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_041008.htm
. .
Yea,right, Saddam was no threat at all and Sanctions were working mighty fine.
liberals have been so wrong on this war that they voted for
that it makes me sick to see them even talk about using Military force in any capacity.
“Smart Power” my A$$!!!!
Baxter Greene on January 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM
You were so against the iraqi war that you voted for Bush in ’04 over anti-iraqi Hanoi Jhon Kerry?
Oh yeah, that’s credible little moonbat…ROFL.
ex-Democrat on January 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I guess prove is another word that has had it’s meaning altered.
prove – To repreat a lie over and over until it becomes truth. This may be enhanced by sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and singing “La-la-la-la I can’t hear you” loudly when opposing evidence is presented.
reaganaut on January 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
btw, great job to the folks above who have drop-kicked the moonbats. It’s funny how they keep repeating memes right off of the TV “news.” Hilarious. They have no facts and always lose the arguments.
They just KNOW Saddam was a gooooood guy that never would hurt anyone. How do they know? Because the NY Slimes told them so.
ROFL.
ex-Democrat on January 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Dumbasses like Alex do not even know that SADDAM thought he had the WMDs. You idiot monday morning quarterbacks kill me.
Jamson64 on January 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM
He’s one of the reasons I am no longer a subscriber to Foreign Relations. The Council has been infested with spineless, Blame America First bed wetters, like Komrade Beinart.
Zorro on January 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Now, now some people did call Iraq an imminent threat
There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot! — Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
on the Senate Floor
18-1 on January 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM
This is the reflexive caveat always given by a liberal when the success of the war comes up.
To maintain the “war wasn’t worth it” premise, one has to also maintain the premise that Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, would be improved if Saddam still ran that country. To listen to some people, you’d think we invaded Switzerland.
Forgotten are the abuses of the Sunnis, the destruction of the Marsh Arabs and their entire environment, the oppression, the two wars of conquest Saddam launched, and the loss of over a million Iraqis to these things.
Even now, for every Iraqi lost to this war, there are still ten who died from Saddam’s actions.
When it looked like civil war, the anti-war people could try to make a case for “better under Saddam,” but now? How about five years from now, if democratic and economic progress continues? Ten years?
How long before the idea that things would be better if Saddam still ruled Iraq starts to look not only ridiculous, but even obscene?
tbrosz on January 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
As for my point last night (hey, I got sleepy waiting for a reply), we only started showing our own intel on the bribed Security Council members and putative “allies” as we were able to corroborate the assertions with documents pulled from Iraqi government buildings post-invasion.
Without serious corroboration that our “allies” could not refute, it would have been foolish to publicly and overtly make the assertion that the fix was in. That corroboration could not have been gained without seriously compromising our methods of gathering intel from our allies—we could have burned our sources, screwed ourselves diplomatically, and still not have been able to put a stop to the problem.
The decision was made that it was better to find as many pretexts as we could against Saddam, and take him out, and use our subsequent discoveries to corroborate our real reasoning (which we did) and our pretexts (which in the case of WMD we didn’t—yet).
Sekhmet on January 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM
But we got more WMD from the Iraq War than we ever expected (though it wasn’t found in Iraq). Libya gave up its nuke program, along with a huge amount of the AQ Khan network, only as a direct result of going into Iraq. So, as far as WMD stopped because of the Iraq War, we ended up with much more, and more important, WMD, including the whole supply chain coming from the biggest black market source.
progressoverpeace on January 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM
The security council resolution in 2002 that the U.S. (NOT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION – THE U.S.) used to go into Iraq justified the action based on Iraq’s defiance of earlier resolutions and the inadequacy of the blockade to change the regimes illegal behavior.
The security council never voted on the second resolution that the U.S. presented – the one that was put forward with the argument about WMD’s.
To say that we overthrew the regime because of false intelligence about WMD’s is false.
kcewa on January 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM
The comments miss the whole point of the post. In fact they illustrate the narrow-minded foolishness that Peter B. is warning against. The libs and conservatives square off and swing away over the war on strictly ideological grounds.
Boring.
The more interesting part of the column to me is this quote…
Beinart and the media, consequently a large portion of voting America, equates the incompetence and corruption of the “rump minority in Congress” as synonymous with conservatism. He’s right. The quickest way forward for the conservative movement is to break away from the smoking hulk that is the Republican Party.
Conservative legislators in the GOP should form a caucus of Independents and stand separate from the corrupt, spineless leadership of the Party. They will have more say and influence separate from these hollow men and they could be laying the foundation for a new political force that could overwhelm or replenish the GOP.
rcl on January 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I was a supporter of the surge, but there’s no question that the surge itself was a final and last stand in a country where a failed policy had lead to a desperate situation- Iraq was spiraling out of control. If you read an inside account of the surge policy, such as The War Within, you know that Bush and his team understood that the surge was their final and only hope.
We also realize that the success of the surge also depended on outside factors- such as the rise of the Sunni Awakening. Without the support of the Sunnis, sending in more troops would have changed little. Keep in mind that this was never a liberal vs. conservative issue. Before the surge began, nearly the entire military command, including the top 3 generals on the ground, opposed the surge militarily. Those generals didn’t anticipate the Sunnis Awakening. Did Bush?
Perhaps the question is this- did Bush, from his distant perspective of Washington DC- know more than his generals about the formation of Sunni resistance to al Qaeda and how that would change the calculus of the war? I’m not sure that you can describe Bush’s insistence on the surge as more persistence or luck. But it’s hard to say that Bush knew more than his military command, or held some kind of ‘conservative vision’ that foresaw everything that was about to unfold on the ground.
foreverright on January 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM
foreverright on January 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Very well said.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I’m afraid we’ll have to settle for this 2nd grade sort of nonsense for the immediate future. Because sadly no-nothings do not know anything about history. Whether that history is within 8 years much less 60 years.
“implies”?
As if WMD was the ONLY reason given to take out saddam? It wasn’t.
For some reason no-nothings (that try with all their might to sound like intellects) forget Bushes speech given after 9-11.
About who would be held accountable, and the several reasons they WOULD be held accountable.
Saddam met most if not ALL of those points.
Bush was a man of his word. I respect that.
Now two countries are liberated and have MORE than a shot of a real life. Whatever that might mean for them, hopefully it is not one where your throat can be slit for letting your daughters learn how to read.
Many ‘no-nothings’ due to their lack of history suffer from a lack of context as well.
Many of those are also sadly conservatives.
IS Iraq a failure? Or Afghanistan?
Look back, no-nothings to a “good war”…Look to WW2.
Was that the perfect war? Yes?
Oh really, no-nothings?
See how many mistakes were made in the first HOURS.
How many lives were lost before getting off the boats.
Due to miscalculations. To mistakes.
“Bushes wars” were not ‘perfect’ because there ARE no ‘perfect’ wars.
But by comparison……they were extraordinary.
The leadership spot on in its tenacity about winning, and courageous beyond anything seen since Lincoln.
‘Bushes wars’ were miracles. In the speed in which they came down, were won, AND with the smallest of causalities.
Miracles indeed.
It will take awhile to digest it. Sadly it will take longer than I think it would normally…because we are a somewhat dumber people.
“no-nothings” with computers…faking intellect while knowing nothing about history, and less about context.
You may quote me.
Handel on January 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Handel on January 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Really? I can quote you? That’s great, if I write my dissertation on political theory I’ll definitely want to make ample use of your insights.
alex342 on January 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM
The Sunni Awakening would not have taken place without the support of our military and providing them with a means to defend themselves.
Al-qaeda had taken over these providences and ruled with barbaric measures.This was more than evident and was used by the US to get the Sunni to work with us against the terrorist.The same methods were used to get the Shia to work with us against the milita’s and eventually oust Sadr.
This was tried twice under Rumsfeld but failed because the populace thought we were going to cut and run.
The terrorist follow our politics closely and when the dems took control and the President stayed strong,Operation Anaconda was set in motion and resulted in success.
Bush showed strength and leadership by introducing the surge when the democrats and their friends in the Press ridiculed it as nothing but a failure.
Bush had plenty of information and guidance from Generals and other leaders in the military in making his decision for the surge.
Why the Surge Worked
By MATTHEW KAMINSKI
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186492076758643.html
How The Surge Worked
By Peter Mansoor
Sunday, August 10, 2008; B07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080802918_pf.html
People will contentiously try to rewrite history in terms of making it look like Bush either just got lucky or that the imput of the surge only had a minimal effect in bring the Iraq war to a success.The facts on the ground due not support these political hit jobs.
Bush was strong to go against so many because he knew that failure in Iraq would create immense bloodshed and probably all out war in the middle east.
It is sad and pathetic that all the democrats saw was an opportunity to undercut this country and stab our Soldiers in the back for political gain.
Baxter Greene on January 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Good. Then yer’ learnin’ already, youngster.
Cuz ya wont be a’gittin this in your high school,(which is where I think your at, Grade uncertain..but since you are almost near imbecile, I’ll bet its near senior grade status.)
The reason you wont get it in high school is because..its based on fact, not feeling. Not just cuz you think ‘W’ is such a mean ole meanie mean!
Go…do yourself a favor…READ a history book that doesn’t have an agenda. Look at w.w 2. (I cite that, because most dummies..like yourself, think of that as the perfect and ‘good’ war.) See the mistakes and the costs of those mistakes.
Then come on back…To which I will most humbly accept your apology for your juvenile thinking.
…’Junior’.
Handel on January 18, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Beinhart is wrong, in fact clueless on both counts. Both decisions – the decision to remove Hussein and the decision to Surge rather than concede Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran were the right decision.
Anyone who questions whether the Surge was the right decision – going in – obviously is clueless about the consequences if America had withdrawn and conceded Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. It would have been an unmitigated disaster for American security and would have consigned the GOP to the political wilderness for a generation once the extent of the disaster sunk in.
As to whether the war was necessary, it depends on whether you are okay with Iraq pursuing nuclear weapons and finacing, training and harboring terrorists – as they would certainly have resumed doing the moment sanctions ended.
Some of us are capable of taking a long range view. Even if Iraq does not become a Jeffersonian democracy it is a oountry which has switched sides in the terror war. Iraq no longer supports terrorism. Rather it hunts down and kills al Qaeda. Would someone please let Beinhart in on this secret.
History will be very kind to GWB.
Basilsbest on January 18, 2009 at 7:49 PM
On a related note, this from Gateway Pundit:
Y-not on January 18, 2009 at 10:51 PM
I promise you,it is not going to take decades to vindicate Bush and show how strong a leader he was.
Baxter Greene on January 18, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2