(Vanity) Bush's Fault! Or, Monday Morning Quarterbacking

(Before I get started, I want to thank Freeper "Peach" who in post 8 on this thread gave me the idea to play "Gotcha!" on Democrats.)

It is a truism among many of the left-of-center media sources, as it as within DNC talking points, and within the Democratic blogosphere, that President Bush lied to get us into Iraq. It is also a given that going into Iraq was a mistake, summarized by the pithy slogan, “Bush lied, people died.” And it is of course a commonplace that Bush merely wanted to invade Iraq for more sinister reasons—revenge for the failed assassination attempt on his Daddy, more money for Halliburton, and Big Oil.

So I think it is worthwhile, since we are insisting on looking at people’s motives, and calling people liars based upon Monday-morning quarterbacking, to give a brief review. No, not of vindication of the President. There are plenty of discussions of that online. Instead, I’d like to look at the track record of the Democrats and their faithful attack hamsters in the mainstream press.

Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

This is Kerry’s famous gaffe: if even the left cannot make up their mind about supporting the troops, or attacking the war…

Please note that I quoted CBS news as the source. You know, the folks that brought us Dan Rather’s anti-Bush forged Air National Guard memos.

And in The Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes quotes Sen. Joseph Lieberman, from an appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” (the article was the Dec. 29, 2003 issue):

Said Lieberman: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."

“Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known, said the sources who declined to be identified. “

“Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.”

Contrast this to the recent behaviour of the Democrats, in which Lieberman was rejected in his own primary; and the recent report of the remaining Senate Democrats, who released a report which basically blew off any connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

According to Wikipedia, in 1997, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, made a speech at Georgetown University in which she stated that sanctions on Iraq probably would not end until Saddam Hussein is replaced.

“While those addressing the gathering described the horrors inflicted on the Iraqi population by US imperialism, the general political orientation of those organizing the town hall meeting is to apply pressure on the Democratic Party and the Clinton administration. This is the same regime which continues to bomb Iraq almost daily, and has overseen the extermination by disease and malnutrition of some 500,000 Iraqi men, women and children for the sake of American geopolitical interests.’

(October 8, 2001): “…while we continue to bomb the innocents (540,000 Iraqi children killed by U.S. in last ten years from bombs and sanctions).”

This was *before* we invaded Iraq the 2nd time…and was referring to the era of “Oil-for-Food” and the US enforcement of the no-fly zone. And curiously enough, while WorldSocialistNews blamed Bill Clinton, Michael Moore blamed President Bush.

540,000 people is more than the number of Japanese civilians killed by US bombing in all of World War II, when we used mass incendiary bombing of cities AND nukes. I call bull hockey!

“One top general was quoted as saying that the 'Iraq hysteria' in some senior Bush officials had been diffused…” “The military are concerned about the possible use of chemical and biological weapons against US troops, about the prospect of bloody, street by street urban warfare, and about some of the wider political issues. “

Hmm, so the WMD’s were so much of a lie that even the Pentagon didn’t want to risk US troops being hit by them? And sorry, despite the fondest wishes of the left, Baghdad is no Stalingrad. Stalingrad resulted in the death of 1.5 million Russians civilians, the death or capture of at least 800,000 Germans, and the utter devastation of the city. So far the United States has lost less than 3000 troops in Iraq. Oh, and by the way, we conquered the whole country and Saddam is no longer in power.

And check out the following from Salon.com, Nov.12, 2002, musing on the political fortunes of the anti-war movement, even before the Iraq war had broken out:

“But if Hussein uses chemical weapons, or appears to defy the U.N. and unites most of the world against him, these people will come to see the war as a necessary response to a true threat.”

This pundit must not have been faxed his “Bush lied, people died” talking points yet. 0 for 3.

Here is a nice piece from Salon.com on March 22, 2003, which describes the spontaneous outpouring of anti-American violence from the Arab Street, in a direct response to the US-led invasion of Iraq.

It says: “There was fury Friday across the Muslim world. Two protesters in Yemen were killed as they tried to storm the American embassy. In Jordan, according to Al Jazeera, 80,000 people defied a government ban to march and police used tear gas to disperse a crowd in the city of Ma-an. In Cairo, Egypt, tens of thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets after Friday prayers. Some set overturned cars alight and the police beat and arrested hundreds. In Jakarta, Indonesia, according to the Jakarta Post, 2,500 people protested outside the U.S. embassy, with larger protests scheduled for Sunday. And according to the BBC, thousands protested across Africa, in Bangladesh, Indian-controlled Kashmir and Pakistan, where a "million man march" is planned for Sunday.”

It is true there has been a lot of fallout so far—but despite the claims, not all of it is related to Iraq. The failed attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the infamous 9-11 were *before* Iraq; the rioting in France by “disaffected youths” (you’ve got to hand it to those French Amish, eh?); the attacks on embassies following the Mohammed Cartoons in the Danish newspaper; the new controversy involving the Pope—all unrelated to Iraq, and all the “Arab street”.

You know, having Muslims commit terror sporadically is one thing. Having the whole Muslim world turn against us is quite another. As far as I know, Musharraf is still running things (more or less) in Pakistan. And other than Iran (which was already a Mullahcracy) I haven’t noticed that the Arab street has swept Muslim fundamentalists into power—even after the further insult of Israel’s retaliatory attack on Lebanon.

And, come on, “million man march?” I know Louis Farrakhan headed up the Nation of Islam, but I didn’t know his roots hearkened to Pakistan instead of Africa.

Still, to show I’m playing fair, we’ll score this a draw. And that’s being charitable. 0 for 3, 1 draw.

5.. Predictions of Political Fallout at Home / Deranged US troops (Vietnam Syndrome):

The Salon.com article mentioned earlier in #3 above said, “I believe that the majority of Americans will not support Bush’s war plans if they knew them in their entirety.”

United for Peace and Justice also announced massive protests, from this site, http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1428, dated March, 2003.

Somehow, despite the best efforts of the press, the hippie-counterculture mass protests forcing an end to the greedy, unjust, capitalist war haven’t materialized. Cindy Sheehan, you’re no Jane Fonda (or even Sara Jane Olsen).

Oh, and President Bush was re-elected in 2004. No one-termer, like LBJ in Vietnam. Come to think of it, Bush got a larger percentage of the vote during his re-election than Bill Clinton did in either of his runs at the White House (about 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996). Can you say “Mandate”? 0 for 4, 1 draw.

But the liberal Washington Post said in 2005, after the voting, “The turnout in last Sunday's Iraqi elections surprised even the most optimistic observers in the Middle East. Reading Arab newspapers during the weeks before the vote, one could hardly escape the expectation that the adventure of holding elections in Iraq was certain to be a fiasco. The bulk of Arab intellectuals and journalists foresaw a minimal turnout and possibly devastating results, such as an outbreak of civil war between the Shiite and Sunni populations and the emergence of an Iranian-controlled Islamic republic of Iraq.”

More than eighteen months after this article, the photos of ink-stained fingers have gone all over the globe via the Internet; and there is still no Mullahcracy calling the shots in Iraq.

By the way, I can’t resist the temptation to point out that just maybe the reason that Democrats were so full of scorn about the purple fingers is that it would be a cheap, non-discriminatory way to erode voter fraud by repeated voting in the US. 0 for 5, 1 draw.

Do you remember Arianna Huffington and her “Detroit Project” ? Her idea was that since the War on Iraq was basically a war for “Big Oil” that the best response was to encourage Detroit to build and sell cars other than gas-guzzlers.

Her thinking may be exhibited by this quote from an article she wrote in November, 2002:

“Dealers are having a hard time keeping up with the demand for the Hummer H2, GM's new $50,000 barely domesticated spin-off of the Gulf War darling, which struggles to cover 10 miles for every gallon of gas it burns. The symbolism of these impractical machines' military roots is too delicious to ignore: We go to war to protect our supply of cheap oil in vehicles that would be prohibitively expensive to operate without it.”

Have you checked the price at the pump lately? Apparently the run-up in prices in response to the Iraq war finally woke the left up, and they changed their tune.

Quoting from Huffington again, this time in 2005, after the price of oil went up in response to events in the Middle East:

“Just look at the head-on collision at General Motors, which, along with the rest of the industry, has enjoyed one fuel economy loophole after another. The company bet the farm on hulking gas-guzzlers and engines whose basic designs date to the 1950s. Now, with gas prices heading through the sunroof, demand for SUVs has tumbled--and with it, GM's fortunes. Despite rebates as high as $6,000, sales of models including the Hummer H2 have dropped by double digits. As a result, GM has taken a $4 billion cash flow hit and laid off thousands of workers--yet losses are still expected to reach $850 million in the first quarter of 2005 alone.”

Hmm, ok. Being Arianna means never having to say you’re sorry. A simple acknowledgement that she had shot from the hip the first time would have been nice.

At least Andrew Sullivan has developed a clue. As he wrote in May, 2006 on his blog:

“One thing that today's high gas prices strongly suggest is that, whatever else it was, the Iraq war was surely not about oil. If you care about cheap oil above everything else, you'd have found some deal with Saddam, kept the oil fields pumping, and maintained the same realist policy toward Arab and Muslim autocracies we had for decades. Or you could have just seized the Southern oil fields. Instead, we risked losing all of Iraq's oil fields at the beginning of the war, and now face a crippled supply just as India and China are booming and the U.S. is growing fast.”

But you know, even then he might be wrong. Since May, the price of gasoline in the US has shot up over the summer, flirting with the magical $3.00 per gallon mark, and then…tanked. I have even read (unconfirmed) reports of gas for less than $2.00 per gallon in Missouri during the last week.

But—never to be deterred by the facts, the liberals are now blaming the low prices on George Bush. It is now a conspiracy to help Republicans get elected!

“You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away,” Cafferty suggested on the August 30 “Situation Room,” just five days before the Chevron (NYSE:CVX) oil discovery.

Cafferty, prompted by panelist Jennifer Westhoven, repeated the allegation on the September 2 “In the Money.” “Certainly the thought had crossed my mind. I mean, the oil companies have a vested interest in seeing that the Republicans remain in control of the federal government,” he remarked.

Final Count: 0 for 6, 1 draw. I guess being a weatherman isn’t the only place where you can keep your job no matter how often you’re wrong.

1.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=2
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/iraq-a13.shtml
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2001-10-08

3.
http://www.voices.netuxo.co.uk/library/letter_july02.html
http://blogs.salon.com/0001282/2002/11/12.html

5.
http://blogs.salon.com/0001282/2002/11/12.html
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1428

7.
http://www.detroitproject.com/
http://skeptically.org/oil/id2.html
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/14625/
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/05/a_war_for_oil.html
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20060911135355.aspx

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

A POX ON ALL THEIR HOUSES!

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.