So Congress is resolving to support the troops - but opposes the President's pan to send help.
May I remind you of a few inconvenient truths? First, there have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11. The reason for that is President Bush took the War Against Jihadists to the Middle East. We now fight the battle for Western Civilization in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of in the United States.
May I remind you
of a few inconvenient truths? After 9/11 the United States was not attacked for 554 days before
we invaded Iraq in an attack of our choosing. For more than a year and a half before our foray into nation-building in Iraq, we some how deterred or defeated any Jihadist attacks.Therefore, for you to make false conclusions that we have been safe only because we invaded Iraq is bogus and illogical.
As far as our invasion of Afghanistan, it was at the time, and since been, fully regarded as a necessary and justified action and I have never heard any liberal, any world leader, nor any opponent of President Bush question or deride that decision.
The issue, clearly, is Iraq and the fact this was a war of choice, an attack on a nation that was militarily contained and largely de-fanged by DESERT STORM, the ongoing UN economic sanctions and the DESERT FOX strikes, which destroyed its last vestiges of WMD production or development.
We spectacularly won the Cold War primarily through containment, yet we chose to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq and fatally tangle ourselves in their internecine civil war.
I have said before, and I still believe, the U.S. is the world superpower and we must act like one. I believed that removing Saddam Hussein was the right choice. However, we tried to do it on the cheap, with hope
as the majority of our plan and false or disregarded intelligence
as the majority of our assumptions. Like misbegotten Spanish Conquistadores
we searched in vain for the WMD Seven Cities of Cibola, while ignoring the vast number of mundane conventional weapons caches
(pronounced like “he cashes
a check”) which, forthwith, were looted to arm our enemies. We simply cannot play the superpower role and fight these kinds of wars all while maintaining a
“business as usual” on the home front. If we are to act and prevail as a superpower, then we must commit fully as a nation and take the difficult but necessary steps to win.
If you try to use the Sean Hannity counterattack, that to oppose the war in Iraq is the moral equivalent of supporting the mass murder, rape, and tyranny of Saddam, then I say that is absurd. If our policy is driven merely to end tyranny in other parts of the world, then an invasion of North Korea or Iran would have liberated far more oppressed people with the added benefit of elimination regimes that clearly were about to produce their own nuclear weapons.
The removal of Kim Jong Il’s regime in North Korea and its unification with South Korea would have immediately stabilized the region and allowed even greater prosperity for the Republic of Korea and China, with significant economic benefit accruing to Japan, Russia, and the U.S. as well. Bush long talked tough, but has now caved in to giving Pyongyang exactly what it wants in exchange for more empty promises, just to have a fleeting and shallow diplomatic victory in his time of troubles.
I don’t have to tell you about the dangers of Iran, you seem to understand it very well. But we can now do nothing to counter Iran, short of an unambiguous an dramatic provocation by the Ayatollahs, because we are bogged down militarily, and politically in Iraq. Bush has expended all the American and worldwide capital he had in the aftermath of 9/11 to decisively deal with America’s true threats and decided, instead, to take out a broken-down, tin-horn dictator who was a minor threat. Then, we even messed that up because we tried to do it with a skeleton force, and an attitude that we were happy to take the baby to the playground, but we didn't want to stick around to change any dirty diapers.
A big problem, in my view, is the legacy of Desert Storm. The American public and Congress want all our wars to be like Desert Storm. Impressive, technological, and, above all, BRIEF
. Rather like a big bowl game, our forces run in, kick some ass 66-0 and then get to hit the showers and go home to parades and celebrations. It was a relief (and lucky) the Desert Storm veterans got to experience that kind of war, rather like our Spanish American War in 1898. We thought we had the same thing on May 1st, 2003 as it was celebrated on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln
. But as “Honest Abe” himself knew, it ain’t over till it’s over. Desert Storm was an anomaly, an aberration, a freak occurrence. Only a seriously miscalculating fool would have put his forces out in the open to contest America in a conventional fashion. The North Vietnamese were not that ignorant, nor were the Mujahadeen
fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. But Saddam was just that kind fool. Well, Saddam got his ultimate reward dancing at the end of a rope, while being taunted by a clutch of howling, cowardly men unwilling to show their faces to their own people. I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein but I note the utter lack of dignity, courage, and seriousness of the regime we have replaced him with.
President George W. Bush is determined to continue his present course and policies, regardless of how unpopular it makes him and regardless of the ruin it will cause to his own party. He sees himself as Harry Truman, himself likewise embroiled in a stalemated war, but with a good cause. Bush believes that, like Truman, while he may leave office despised by both parties, and tanked in the polls, he will be vindicated, honored, and thanked by the judgment of history.
The Jihadists, including Osama bin Laden if he's still alive, are pulling for this resolution. The resolution will inspire terrorists to even great violence
This is utter nonsense. Even if Osama is following U.S. politics, it is irrelevant. That is like saying the Germans really wanted Wendell Willkie or Thomas Dewey to defeat Franklin Roosevelt, as if that would win the war for Germany. Willkie or Dewey would not have “cut and run” any more than Nixon did when he took office in 1969. When Nixon was re-elected four years later, in 1972, we were still
fighting in Vietnam.
Congress is finally stepping up because of the woeful mismanagement, to say nothing of false rosy predictions of success, and the entire matter is becoming a bottomless abyss for both parties.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”