Posted on 12/27/2003 8:20:35 AM PST by Chi-townChief
Was the capture of Saddam Hussein a major victory for the United States? It was certainly a victory in the extended Iraq war. It was a victory for President Bush over the man who plotted to kill his father. It was a victory for the U.S. military and its intelligence service -- especially for the lieutenant and the corporal who figured out how to find him. It was a victory for the Republican Party's plan to keep a stranglehold on American politics. But was it, as the president told us, a victory in the ''war on terrorism''?
Despite the media hoopla and the White House spin doctors, it was not. The administration legitimized the invasion of Iraq as part of the ''war on terrorism'' and deceived the American people into believing that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack and that he had ''weapons of mass destruction.'' No one, except possibly Vice President Dick Cheney and the Wall Street Journal, believed that Saddam was involved in the attack on the World Trade Center. The weapons of mass destruction have disappeared. The president asks a TV interviewer what difference the mass destruction question makes, now that we have eliminated Saddam from power.
Note how slippery the administration line has been. The purpose of the war now is to get rid of an evil man who had done horrible things to his own people, even if he wasn't a real threat to us. Would those Americans who are willing to settle for that rationale have bought it at the beginning of the war? Such is the slipperiness of the administration's dishonesty that it can get away with a change in motives for the war. Do those who buy this shifting of the deck of cards want to send American troops into North Korea or Iran or a half-dozen African countries to rid the world of similar evil men?
The truth is that Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their ''neo-conservative'' intellectuals wanted a quick little war with Iraq to display America's strength as the world's only superpower even before the 2000 election. The attack on the World Trade Center provided an excellent excuse to unveil America's unilateral, preemptive foreign policy. Has the war made the United States any more secure from al-Qaida?
It would seem that it has not. Quite the contrary, it has stirred up a whole new phalanx of terrorists in Iraq with which we did not formerly have to contend.
It is reasonably well known that Osama bin Laden instructed his forces to have nothing to do with Saddam because he was a secularist and a socialist and not a good Muslim. A man who imagined himself as the holy Caliph of a new Islamic empire could hardly tolerate Saddam as one of his subjects.
The Iraq war, prolonged by unspeakably bad planning for the post-war period, has distracted the United States from the battle with terrorists. If the military force sent to Iraq and the immense efforts to capture Saddam had been diverted to pursuing bin Laden, Americans would be much safer today.
The ultimate failure of the Bush administration is that it permitted itself to be so consumed by its need to take on Iraq that it lost interest in hunting down bin Laden. Its ultimate dishonesty is the (effective) deception of the American people about Iraq.
So, brave and good American men and women continue to die in Iraq, as do good Iraqi men and women. The military tells us that the Army will have to remain for two more years. The war was not only unnecessary, it was unjust by any and all of the traditional canons of an unjust war.
Gen. Curtis LeMay, who led the firebomb raids on Japan (far more destructive than the atom bombs), once remarked that if the United States should lose the war, he would be tried as a war criminal. The United States won the war and no Americans were tried as war criminals. The victors are never tried.
The Bush administration is planning a trial for Saddam. The Europeans are insisting that it must be a ''fair'' trial, whatever that might be for such a man. No one in the Bush administration will be tried for the unjust and unnecessary Iraq war -- at least not by a court on Earth.
mailto:agreel@aol.com
What the hell are you talking about?
You asked FOUR times for polling results that answered "how Bush was handling the war", and I gave it to you. Now you are off of some other "questions".
Then why didn't you mention it in any of your questions?
If you still don't understand, don't worry about it, many people do,
Judging by your nearly incoherent posts, I doubt you do.
Your illusionary "Big Gubbermint" is merely wishful thinking on your part, to give you something hang your tin-foil hat on.
In actuallity, you are painfully ignorant about government and how it works. You simply play into the logic that because a new element has been installed, it some how must be "bigger".
In reality, the legislation has merely shifted funds from obsolete, discontinued programs and placed them into a more important priorities. In doing so, it has become more efficient, not "bigger".
First humiliation, followed by denial, then respect, followed by frustration, then fear, followed by resignation, then capitulation, followed by peace.
It is easy for you to Monday QB, but you are on the wrong side of history on this one. There were over 300,000 murdered by this butcher and you are supporting that. History is going to look at you folks the same way they look at Nevil Chamberlin, because your a coward just like him. It takes people like Churchill and GW Bush to do the heavy lifting while you folks complain and excuse yourselves.
Pray for W and The Truth
It points out a recent poll; "30% of American families have some member with a severe learning disability.
You have my sympathy as well as understanding.......
What has happened since Saddam has left his hole?
- The Saudi's crack down on Islamic militants.
- Musharraf goes after his rogue nuclear scientists.
- Qaddaffy capitulates.
Yes it is a victory in the war on terrorism.
Federal government spending has been roughly between 18% and 22% of GDP since waaaaay back before LBJ.
Crying wolf about WHAT?!
Here are your posts again:
Post #42: "Where are the polls on Bush's approv rate on war?"
Post #67: "No the question -- anyone? is what are the polls like on approval for the war."
Post #72: "I am looking for a poll on the approval for handling of the war."
Post #76: "No it is not the same. Want to see up front "approve or disapprove on the President's handling of the war."
Are you lying, or is this discussion over your head?
Nah, he's a troll. Just look up some of his old posts.
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.