Posted on 07/12/2003 8:25:42 AM PDT by Destro
We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.
Majority of Americans Now Question Justification for Iraq War
by David T. Pyne, Center for the National Security Interest
11 July 2003
In retrospect it is painfully clear that Saddam and Iraq never posed any threat either in terms of intention or capabilities against either American civilians here at home or even to US troops which were invading their own country.
According to a poll conducted last week by the University of Maryland, 52 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration either "stretched the truth" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or told outright lies. Only 32 percent said they thought the government was being "fully truthful" about the Iraqi arsenal. Similarly, 56 percent of those polled believed the US government stretched the truth or made outright false statements about Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda.
As witnessed by this latest poll, the American people are finally beginning to realize the truth about the war in Iraq and how the Bush Administration deliberately deceived the American people on Iraqi WMD and other issues to attempt to justify a war, which could not be justified on that or any other grounds. This war represented a marked departure from America's previous 227-year Judeo-Christian just war tradition. For one of the first times in US history, America was the aggressor against a country that our Secretary of State admitted posed no threat to the United States and which has since been proven to lack even a rudimentary capability to even defend itself against invasion let alone threaten another.
This policy, far from being conservative in nature, represents a continuance of the Clinton foreign policy of transforming the United States into an aggressor power that attacks countries that pose no threat to it as was the case when the Clintonites targeted Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Sudan, Kosovo and Iraq for military action without even the most rudimentary justification back in the 1990s. Only in Afghanistan in 1998 was the application of US military power by the Clinton Administration justified, although even then it represented an attempt to 'wag the dog' and divert attention from the House vote to impeach him. Ultimately, it resulted in a couple dozen million dollar cruise missiles hitting a bunch of empty tents in the desert at an Al Queda training camp.
Likewise, the Bush Administration's invasion of Afghanistan was amply justified and properly executed in response to the Al Queda suicide bomber attack against America on 9-11 under the time-honored rules of just war. However, as in the case of Iraq, the Administration has signaled no plans to ever withdraw the US military presence from that beleaguered country or its neighbors in Central Asia, and American troops are increasingly paying the price with their lives as they continue to be subjected to attacks from local insurgents. Today US troops, whose primary constitutional role is defense of the US homeland, find themselves deployed in nearly 200 nations the world over. The US military and particularly the US Army is suffering badly from imperial overstretch even as calls to further slash its force structure continue to ring out from Rumsfeld and his chief lieutenants at the Bush Department of Defense.
Testimony by the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, and a CIA intelligence report issued last fall confirmed that Iraq did not pose an actual or imminent threat to the US but merely a "potential threat" which might emerge several years from now. At the time, Mr. Tenet testified to Congress that "it appears that Iraq had drawn a line in the sand against targeting the US with terrorist action or WMD attack," but that it might change its policy were the US to invade it. Why then did Bush choose to invade it and presumably provoke the very kind of action which he was supposedly fighting to prevent? We can all be very thankful that Saddam chose to destroy his weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion rather than use them against our brave US fighting soldiers. In retrospect it is painfully clear that Saddam and Iraq never posed any threat either in terms of intention or capabilities against either American civilians here at home or even to US troops which were invading their own country.
As casualties continue to mount against our heroic troops in Iraq, rather than do the right thing and set a near-term time table for the withdraw of our armies of occupation, the Administration has declared that they will remain there indefinitely. If they do, they will almost certainly be subjected to an increased tempo of guerilla and terrorist attacks from the understandably resentful citizens of Iraq, who prefer self-determination and democracy to occupation by a foreign power. America was not meant by its founders to be an aggressor state or an empire, but rather a constitutional republic under God.
Nearly three months after our victory over Iraq, and after untold thousands of searches, the Administration has been unable to locate a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. Over one-hundred and fifty of our brave fighting men and women have been killed in action and an equal number of families have suffered immeasurable loss, not to mention the loss of several thousand lives of Iraqi soldiers who died defending their country and Iraqi civilians. Has the price of empire been worth it? The price has already been far too high for too many American families who have had loved ones die without a just cause to console them and justify their heroic sacrifice.
The American people believed the President and were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to his unconfirmed allegations of possession of threatening weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. However, their patience is wearing increasingly thin as the evidence comes out that the Administration may have knowingly deceived them and manufactured intelligence to support their unsupportable claims. Ultimately, this unjust war may well be the undoing of the Bush presidency. Given that the alternative outcome of a Democrat presidency would almost certainly result in even greater harm to the American republican system of government, hopefully that will not be the case.
David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who serves as President of the Center for the National Security Interest, a national security think-tank based in Arlington, VA. This article published originally at EtherZone.com; republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.
Email David T. Pyne @ red_alert_usa@yahoo.com
OK, but how many give a rat's @ss?
Gore repeats that Saddam MUST GO - June 2000
Taliban, Clinton, Saudi Involvement - All laid out in a book published in 2000 (from USMC.MIL site)
The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein (Dems nailed, yet again)
Headline Rundown and links on Iraq - Things the democrats have conviently forgot...
Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton -clear and present danger to safety of people everywhere 1998
What the democrats want you to forget
Iraq is a Regional Threat, capable of as much as 200 tons of VX nerve agent (1999 Clinton report)
Czech military reports say iraq has smallpox virus in weapons stockpile (and camelpox)
Iraqi chemical weapons buildup reported (Sept 2001 Report)
Clinton, Gore rally domestic support for strike at Iraq, "unholy axis" (1998 Must read)
statement President Clinton from 1998 on the air strikes
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Full Text, Sense of Congress - Remove Saddam
This poll is damage assesement. RATS always do this. They run propaganda campaigns, then survey the battlefield. Expect more of it. These stats--true or not--will be used to harm American security further.
Indeed, see my last post :)
It is amazing to watch the press ramble and rant about things that are supposition and political commentary, but not investigative reporting. It also betrays the liberal leanings and political slants of the press, once you have some idea of what is known and agreed upon fact, and what is conjecture and supposition.
There is no doubt that Iraq once had WMD and their programs constituted a dire threat, not just to the US, but to the entire world, including the people of Iraq. What has happened to those weapons and programs and materials is in doubt, but their existance and the intent to use them is not.
One does not have to support Saddam to understand that he was no risk and could have been safely ignored. It was not necessary to put our boys at risk or to kill thousands of innocent civilians. Apparently a bare majority understands that already. How many will understand that in November 2004?
The Republicans would be well advised to find another candidate rather than go down with the Bush ship.
This kind of crap is no different than what happened during VietNam.
Editorial after editorial whining about the reason for the war when our men and women were dying for that reason.
There's going to be a big push to get us out of Iraq, the same way the anti-war protestors did during 'Nam.
If it succeeds our children will have another despot to deal with in a few short years.
Don't worry--the Liberaltarians will field a top notch candidate and save us all.
Some day.
Some day.
The day the bong freezes over.
good point!
The war with Iraq is bush's strongest attribute, and his only hope, which isnt much.
The economy, jobs, employment, deficit spending, balance of trade, falling dollar, number of factories closing, number of americans filing bankruptcies, bush's willingness to sign extention of assault weapons bans, increased suseptability of foreign terrorism on american shores, etc are all against bush staying in office.
His tax cut is temporary at best, and only helps those employed. As long as federal government spending is increasing, taxes will go up one way or anothter, the tax cut is superficial. Higher governemnt spending results in more taxes. Higher unemployment means that fewer americans who do work, will have to make up for the taxes not paid by those unemployed. Dont fool yourself, your taxes will go up by what bush has done. Bush has not ended one single federal program, he has not eliminated one single federal department, we still have the department of education, we still have the epa, and now bush will start paying for prescriptions. All these things cost money, and fewer taxpayers will have to pay more and more in taxes.
Why have a republican president who supports gun control and is letting the economy tank while he only seems to be concerned with Iraq?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.