Posted on 01/30/2003 4:32:02 PM PST by job
Last night I watched a debate on Hardball in which C.Matthews expressed Bush had proffered three (3) reasons for going to war:
(1) Violation of UN treaties for failing to destroy weapons of mass destruction,
(2) Regime change for a country that has helped terrorists flourish, and
(3) Liberation of the Iraqi and other indigenous people from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein.
No fair minded, intellectually honest person can claim Hussein has not violated the UN treaties. The evidence already presented, as outlined in Blix's report and the State of the Union address, clearly demonstrates Hussein is in violation of the UN treaties, if nothing else, for the failure to destroy the constituents of biochemical weapons. That violation, in and of itself, is justification for removing Hussein from power as a violation of the UN cease fire treaty, and to remove the threat from neighboring countries, one of which he invaded, stole, raped and pillaged.
The fear (of being on the receiving end) of the weapons of mass destruction is imposed on all of Hussein's neighbors in the Near East, especially Kuwait and Israel, and is now imposed on the United States, should Hussein transfer these weapons to a more than willing terrorist cell to do his bidding in the lower 48.
This has made some strange bed fellows out of liberal Democrats. Liberals, who either hate George Bush because he is antithetical to their ideology, or more likely, hate George Bush as a reminder that they are no longer in power, wind up defending Hussein. In what may be the most perverted twist of logic, liberals actually charge Bush with posing the greater danger to peace, not Hussein. It is unbelievable, and sickening at the same time. Only the liberal left can get someone like Jeneane Garafolo to take the point position for Saddam to proclaim that Bush is perpetrating a fraud upon the people of the United States. Katrina Van Huevel also proclaimed loudly that Bush was "lying" about aluminum tubes that may or may not be used to enrich uranium (apparently, there may be debate about whether there is evidence that the tubes were to used for that purpose). However, Ms. Van Huevel was silent about Bush's claims about the documentation of biochemical weapons. Why Ms. Van Huevel is comfortable with death due to a terrorist inflicted respiratory failure escapes me.
Nonetheless, the first point is not really even debatable anymore. Sufficient evidence is in, from the UN no less, to establish the fact that Saddam is in violation of the UN resolutions requiring him to disarm his weaons of mass destruction.
A tougher case may be made for helping terrorists only because the left keeps raising a red herring. First of all, all the evidence known to the President and other people in classifed positions simply cannot be relayed to the general public. While I am sure the evidence exists, some evidence may not be released to continue to protect the sources from which it came. (Ironically, the crowd demanding to know all the classified evidence on the Iraqi connection is also the same crowd that would demand that the press's informants be protected from disclosure in a criminal trial.)Colin Powell's statement to the UN could make the connection next week.
The red herring made by the left is that the only reason justifying the invasion of Iraq is if there is a direct connection b/w Hussein and 9/11. The only justification needed is to show that Saddam has helped the terrorists organizations generally, that he has provided them shelter, training, funds, safe harbour. That is all that is needed to justify his removal. It is for self-preservation, and for preservation of our allies. We did it Afghanistan, we will do anywhere the terrorist network exists.
The most compelling reason for his removal, on a personal level, is on account of the atrocities he has committed to his own people, and to the Kurdish people. Hussein has committed every type of torture possible on his victims, from acid baths, to starvation, to gassing, to drilling holes in bodies, electrocution, rape, beatings, murder; men, women, children. These reports are from Iraqis who have escaped his country, not from the US government. Does the left think these folks are lying?
This is where my logic fails to understand the left. Traditionally, it has been the left who has been most vocal in complaining about the violation of human rights abroad (Amnesty Int'l, violations of human rights in South America, South Africa). But, suddenly, as Bush is President, violations of human rights, no murder, is not a sufficient reason to help people under a tyrnannical rule. Katrina Van Huevel and Susan Sarandon have expressed the opinion that there is no justification to invade Iraq, b/c there is no evidence Hussein has done anything to the US.
Applying the same logic, the US would have no right to invade Germany for the systematic extermination of the European Jews and Christians, because, after all, where was the evidence that Germany had actually done something to the United States?
Those on the left would act offended if you claimed that their logic would cause the US to stand idly by during the Holocaust. But why does the left, including Clinton, make such a distinction between white Europeans, and others under tyrannical rulers that commit genocide. Remember, Clinton made an affirmative choice to do nothing during the mass killings in Rwanda. It was preventable (Frontline did a very honest and comprehensive documentary on this subject, which ended with Clinton going to Rwanda, stating that he had made a mistake by not acting. Frontline made it a point to state that Clinton spent such a short time in Rwanda that Air Force One never shut its engines off). Why are the Iraqi people not sufficient justification for the invasion of Iraq?
The most appalling event last night was Matthew's, Huevel's and Conason's ridiculing of Bush's notion of establishing a democracy in Iraq. I still do not understand it. Apparently, Matthews believes that Iraqis can only survive under the feudal regime they have known for the several hundred years, and are not deserving of our help to evolve into a democracy.
It was at this point that I came to believe that the Democrats have no will to lead the United States as the world's only superpower. As Paul Begala has stated, for the Democrats, its about the money, that is all they care about. As long as they are not personally affected, and the money is good, the world can go to hell for all they care. (I personally believe that Clinton's main reason for avoiding any kind of military action during his terms was primarily his fear that it would hurt the economy, and in turn, hurt his re-election and the re-election of his democratic co-horts.) The Democrats have no stomach to stop a murderer of innocent people, more importantly, no conviction to take a stand and do the right thing regardless of what course other countries take. (I have wondered how the Democrats translate this thought into their personal lives: do they teach their children to stand up to the school yard bully who beats on the weaker children, only when the majority of their peers agree that is the right course to take?)
The Democrats have abdicated any role of responsibility to the United States, and to the world, by their own choices. They are no longer fit to lead. I invite your comments.
I wish the democrats didn't have the White House, the Senate, the House, most state legislatures and most govnerships.
Oh wait! They don't! :) The idea that they're not fit to lead was borne out at the ballot box in 2000 and bolstered in 2002.
Well, that's a given; of course they're not. I'm still trying to decide if they're fit to LIVE here.
If you consider that they are devoid from majority power on the state and federal level, and that the same can be said for any (insert your fav 3rd party here), the best thing for the PFKAD to do is to concentrate on local sheriff races and school boards and stop stealing votes from the greens and labor.
True that.
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.