Posted on 09/18/2003 8:50:56 AM PDT by Pokey78
The performance of the liberal media and the Democratic presidential candidates the past few weeks is proof positive that Bush hating addles the mind and rots the senses. With their reckless charges and the wholesale rewriting of recent history, the Left has gone completely off the rails, and it is time to start setting the record straight.
Repeated ad nauseam is that charge that the Bush administration claimed the threat from Iraq was "imminent." Indeed, Gen. Wesley Clark has made that charge a major talking point. But it's rubbish. Here are the president's own words: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." Acting before a threat becomes imminent is the essence of the Bush Doctrine. That's why it's called preemption.
Furthermore, there was never a single reason cited by the president to act against Saddam, but several, including human rights, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, regime change, and democratization. Still, the New York Times continues to distort the truth, and in the process contradicts itself.
On September 15, the paper wrote that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were "the main rationale cited for war earlier this year." But earlier this year, just before the war started, the very same New York Times wrote that, "Many liberals have criticized the president's ever-changing rationales for war. " What both have in common, of course, is that they are negative about the president.
The Bush haters are also befuddled that most Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a role in the September 11 attacks. In fact, there is a definite 9/11-Saddam link, although probably not a direct one. Setting aside the question of how much contact there was between al Qaeda and Saddam, it was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that set off a chain of events that led inexorably to 9/11.
Don't take my word for it. Here is what Time magazine wrote in the October 1, 2001 issue, published shortly after the 9/11 attacks: "for [bin Laden] the real casus belli is the U.S. troop presence in his country dating to the military buildup before the 1991 Gulf War precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait" [emphasis added]. In police terms, Saddam would be an accessory to the 9/11 attacks.
While the Bush haters can blithely overlook Saddam initiating two wars that killed millions, using poison gas on Iranians and his own people, and issuing payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the American people are right to believe that Saddam ran a terrorist state that threatened American interests.
Some of the Bush haters have even gone so far as to say the president has failed in Afghanistan. One particularly over-the-top example is Arizona Republic columnist Ricardo Pimentel, who recently wrote: "The warlords and the folks who harbored Osama the Taliban control nearly all of Afghanistan except for Kabul." While this may be holy writ among the Bush haters, not even bin Laden or Mullah Omar would believe that whopper.
The fact is, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, Afghanistan is no longer one large terrorist training camp, a professional Afghan army has been established, the central government is growing in strength, and the Taliban exert no influence anywhere. Additionally, preliminary estimates by International Monetary Fund show the Afghan economy grew by 28 percent last year.
In the end, however, Pimentel says we now have a duty to stay in Iraq because we created the "chaos" there. Several Democratic presidential candidates have said much the same. The reality is quite different.
Recently I met with the Rev. Kenneth Joseph, an Assyrian minister who went to Iraq as a human shield but did a complete reversal when he saw the truth for himself. He reports that while not perfect, the situation in Iraq is improving daily and is much better than what is being reported here. He says the shops are stocked, the streets are bustling, and the people are hopeful.
The reverend's views echo precisely the results of the first scientific poll in Iraq that shows the people there are optimistic about their future and grateful to America for their liberation. The chaos is in the media, not Iraq.
The Bush haters are doing their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory simply because they want George W. Bush to fail, which coincidently won't happen unless America also fails.
In a book published posthumously, bin Laden confidant Yussuf al Ayyeri warns his fellow fanatics that "American democracy" is the biggest threat to militant Islam, thus vindicating one of the president's central reasons for deposing Saddam. We have an historic opportunity to strike a strong blow against terrorism by establishing a democracy in the terrorist's backyard. We cannot let the opportunity pass.
The terrorists see this for what it is: a threat to their very existence, which is why Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists. To this threat the president has rightly responded, "Bring 'em on!" The president understands it is better we have this inevitable battle in Iraq, not America.
The costs of peace in Iraq are high but the costs of failure are higher. While some at the White House cringe at the notion this is World War IV (the Cold War being WWIII), that's exactly what it is. Americans were willing to shoulder enormous financial burdens to help bring down the Soviet Union. To win this new war, we must likewise be willing to "pay any price" to assure the success of liberty in Iraq for the Iraqis and ourselves.
To those who bemoan the cost of Iraq, I pose this simple question: Is it better to leave future generations with more debt, or more terrorism?
The Honorable J. D. Hayworth is a congressman from Arizona.
The grown-ups know better.
I can respect a claim that we should have passed a bill of Marque and Reprisal in response to the boundaryless attack of 911.But if you compare Iraq to Kosovo or 'most any other post-WWII American military operation you would find that the congressional authorization is quite substantial.
The actual issue is personal between journalists and Bush; journalists believe in the power of PR and therefore consider that a president who overcame journalistic pro-Gore PR to win by a paltry 500 votes to be illegitimate. So it has to be the Supreme Court's fault that Bush rather than Gore is POTUS.
I think the Senate resolution does put some responsibility on the Senate, but I see and appreciate the point you raised in the first part of your sentence.
I have NO idea what the second part of your sentence means.
I think the Senate resolution does put some responsibility on the Senate, but I see and appreciate the point you raised in the first part of your sentence.
I have NO idea what the second part of your sentence means.
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.