Posted on 09/04/2002 1:47:25 PM PDT by profmike23
Where’s Your Case? By Michael Patlan
The mainstream press, led by the New York Times (the paper of distorted record), is in the throes of waging a campaign to prevent military action against Saddam Hussein. They have incorrectly labeled such action an “Attack on Iraq;” it is actually the liberation of innocent people from an evil dictator. The press is as giddy as a schoolgirl meeting a teen heartthrob over the fact that Republicans disagree on this issue. The pro-Saddam crowd has consistently raised a few points, which I will now address.
“We don’t know how much this war will cost.” Were these people hell bent on knowing the exact cost of World War II , the Persian Gulf War or the Cold War? Did anyone ask FDR how much removing Hitler would cost? Did they ask Truman how much containing Communism would cost? There are few things certain in war; length and cost are not two of them.
Another argument made is that action against Iraq could “destabilize the Middle East.” When has the Middle East had any sort of stability? The only things stable about the Middle East are the denial of freedom to the citizens of these repressive regimes and the subordinate role of women. Are those worth defending?
The pro-Saddam crowd has also said this could derail the war on terror. This is the next phase of the war on terror! While they argue that Saddam has no connection to terrorism, they overlook the fact that he pays families of suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000.1 That’s no small sum in the Middle East. Not to mention the recent death of Abu Nidal, a world-renowned terrorist, in Baghdad!2 The BBC was compelled to call Iraq the “last haven” of Abu Nidal and his followers. 3 Some opposed to war continue to maintain that we must solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict first. Saddam is funding Palestinian terrorists – removing him from power would severely diminish the financial benefits of terrorism for Palestinian youth. They want us to solve a conflict Saddam is sustaining before we remove Saddam from power – that’s just absurd!
Another argument is “the President needs to share his plans, so that we can debate them.” Why would we broadcast our military plans to the world (including Saddam)? That’s just insane.
Then, of course, there’s the argument that the “President must make his case.” Did these people miss the State of the Union? Here are a few of President Bush’s words, “Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature… Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” That’s a pretty strong case to me. So to those opposing war with Saddam: Where’s your case?
(Excerpt) Read more at thecitizensforum.com ...
Clinton trotted out 'proof' for bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory and for bombing the crap out of Yugoslavia and it was completely fabricated. Surely an equally untrustworthy Bush administration could do the same thing.
Bottom line, is I trust Bush's judgment on this one -- that Saddam is a threat to US security. I don't trust his judgment on some issues (e.g. immigration) but I do trust it on Iraq.
If a guy like Rumsfeld says Saddam is a threat to my security, but Saddam says no, and Burkeman1 agrees, being unimpressed with the circumstantial evidence...I don't know any of them personally, but with my ass on the line I think I'll stick with Rumsfeld!
Those who are now disagreeing with the effort would not be convinced in any case, no matter the proof. And it seems to me that circumstances like this somewhat preclude the use of evidence that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as if that were even necessary outside of a normal criminal trial.
War is seldom that clean and neat. Those playing "Matlock" should realize that.
The difference is fundamental...if you don't like the domestic security programs, an election looms. Go vote. You cannot, however, vote away an exterior threat. It does not go away if you ignore it, either.
It is the height of folly to use some unsatisfactory domestic issues (CFR, for heaven's sake?) as an excuse for ignoring a threat to our nation as a whole. I'll bet that plenty of those who do so also guarantee such problems in the first place by continually tossing votes to unelectable third party gadflies, which, you may notice, has had the ultimate result of weakening the President's hand at this critical time.
As previously stated: self-centeredness on parade.
This needs to be explained loudly and clearly to the "Nuke Baghdad" crowd.
As far as the domestic issues you raised, they are, IMHO, an attempt at distraction from the main objective. Those laws and measures are wrong-headed in my own opinion as well, but they and the issues surrounding them are best blamed on the "soccer moms" and government 'crats who proposed them. Want them gone? Vote conservative. Throw out the Dems who comprise their strongest support. Don't forget, we (thankfully) do not have a dictatorship at home. The President must compromise with a hostile legislature at every turn on domestic issues.
As for the bar code, it sends your computer's address to the F.B.I whenever you see it. The loud noise you now hear are the helicopters outside your house.
Actually, it came with the picture. I'm also trying to find a colored-in version, thus far to no avail. It's a wonderful picture of a Naval Aircrewman, which I am.
You must look for better sources of information. There are a lot of crackpots out there.
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.