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
That being said, Bush has done a crappy job as to explaining why we went into Iraq.
Tony Blair did a much better job of it 2 days after 9/11 when he stated forcefully that WMD's in the hands of terrorists was unacceptable now that we know they are willing to commit an so heinous as 9/11....any rogue regime we suspect of supplying these weapons is subject ot attack.
This is a no brainer, but the administration has not made it easy on themselves.
These guys would have a better chance of me keeping an open mind if they didn't start off with an outright, deliberate lie.
I'm surprised he put "neo-conservative" in quotes rather than "intellectuals".
That being said, Bush has done a crappy job as to explaining why we went into Iraq.
Either you get it [post-September 11, 2001] or you don't. I understand completely why we went into Iraq.
Why is that so difficult for liberals to understand?
The WMD question is NOT a dead horse. No one who values justice or freedom would let it die. We still need to know did the president lie to us or was he fooled by his advisors? If the second, why are they still around?
How did it come to be that a large majority (roughly 70%) actually believed that Saddam planned the 9/11 attacks? Was this a great text book example of perception management(Propaganda when the Russians did it)?
There is no way that removing a bad guy dictator in another nation, that was no threat to us was justified. If we buy that as justification, we need to expect another dozen or so wars of invasion in the second term.
That is a patently absurd statement.
Sixty-seven percent said the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war with Iraq.
Whenever you get that kind of percentage of people agreeing with you, you have done a good job making the case.
His opinion just doesn't matter.
When did it become a legitmate question IF Hussein had WMDs?
Because prior to 9-11, there were very few people on the planet, outside of Scott Ritter, who didn't believe and state for the record that Iraq was in posession of WMDs.
How did it come to be that a large majority (roughly 70%) actually believed that Saddam planned the 9/11 attacks?
Hussein was horribly defeated and embarassed in Kuwait. He attempted to assassinate GHW Bush. He pays the families of suidice bombers in Israel. He was hip-deep in sponsoring terrorism for years.
Why is it so hard to make the connection?
There is no way that removing a bad guy dictator in another nation, that was no threat to us was justified.
Repeating that, no matter how often, will not make it true.
If we buy that as justification, we need to expect another dozen or so wars of invasion in the second term.
The recent actions of Qadaffi says you are wrong.
Or......you get it but you can't ever admit you do, for fear of giving President Bush any credit at all.
This writer is one one those.
This writer also goes after the cheapshot. Accusing Bush of going to war because Saddam tried to murder his Daddy, as if this war is nothing but a blood feud. Shame on any American reporter who belittles the significance of a foreign power attempting to kill the President of the United States!
WMD's in the hands of maniacs is unacceptable and Iraq was a possible supplier based upon Husseins eratic behavior...that was enough of an explanation.
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.