Correcting the Historical Record--AGAIN
Dean
I'm seeing in the press, once again, the notion that the Bush administration has "shifted its justification for the Iraq operation" to democracy and human rights.
As Instapundit properly noted some time ago--and as everyone who was actually in this country and paying attention at the time knows--bringing democracy and human rights to the Iraqi people was mentioned many, many times by the Bush administration before the invasion. Indeed, if that hadn't been front and center from day one, a whole lot of us would never have supported it in the first place--and a lot of the anti-warfascist sympathizers were arguing back then that the reason was bogus. Now some of the people who three years ago were saying, "the Bush administration is insincere, they don't really mean it" are now, appallingly, saying this is a "new" justification. It's just absurd.
It's not people who disagree with the choices we made I have that much problem with. What I'm tired of is the people who keep making crap up.
For example, there's no doubt that women's rights were not among Bush's motives for ousting the Taliban, but couldn't feminists have supported ousting the Taliban anyway?
Most agree that Saddam was a brutal dictator and human rights violator. Even if Bush ousted Saddam for no other reason than as a show of American strength and resolve, couldn't someone who supports human rights support the war anyway?
There may be justifiable reasons for opposing the war, but all this "We would've supported the war had Bush just given us the reason we wanted to hear beforehand" is just disingenuous nonsense. If you think getting rid of Saddam was, overall, a good thing, does it matter that much that another person might have different reasons for also thinking it's a good thing?
If you think the war in Iraq was a bad idea, then just say so. Don't try to convince the rest of us that we were duped into supporting it. It insults both of our intelligences.
But you're absolutely right otherwise, JDS.
At any rate, I was thinking more along the lines of what Bush's true motives were as opposed to those he mentioned. Bush may have mentioned it, but I don't think many people really believed that women's rights were one of his most important reasons for ousting the Taliban (although a man might go to strange lengths to keep his wife happy). But just because he might list a reason, doesn't mean that it's HIS reason.
And just because it's not HIS reason doesn't mean it's not a good reason.
Sometimes I think people get a little too concerned with motives rather than results.
"Er, actually, Bush did mention women's rights as part of the reason for ousting the Taliban. He even mentioned that his wife brought it up to him repeatedly."
Men of honor have defended the honor of women long before "feminism" was ever conceived.
"I offer you my love," she responded.
And it was honor, offer, honor, offer, all night long.
Yours,
Wince, aka Tom Hawkson
It occurs to me that nothing underscores the truth of Rove's accusation more than the unwillingness to recognize that Iraq it part and parcel to the War on Terror. The insistence that Bush provide incontrovertable evidence of a prior link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attack reveals that they viewed 9/11 as a criminal act, not an act of war.
If 9/11 was merely a criminal action, like Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, then it is very important that our "response" to the "crime" be severely restricted to pursuing the actual perpetrators of the crime, including only the actual conspirators and NO ONE ELSE.
But if 9/11 was an actual Act of War, then it is entirely logical and permissable to reevaluate our status with known enemies and calculate the risks of existing enemies allying themselves with our newly revealed enemies. Since a state of War already legally existed between the United States and Iraq (an armistice was never signed, and Hussein never surrendered), then it is perfectly reasonable to escalate our actions against Iraq.
But for those who insist on viewing the campaign in Iraq as "primarily a law enforcement and intelligence operation," as John Kerry so glibly described it, there can never be a link between Iraq and 9/11. It would be like prosecuting Ted Bundy for the Son of Sam crimes. Both are monsters, but it is uncivilized to prosecute one for the crimes of the other.
Herein lies the "logic" of those who willfully refuse to recognize the link between 9/11 (the provocation for the War on Terror) and Iraq (the most active current front in the War on Terror.) Similarly, these same people cannot see the link between our efforts in Indonesia, the Phillipines, the Sudan, Lybia, etc., etc., as anything but individual and distinct actions against separate actors.
But for those of us for whom the link is obvious, we appreciate that the President understands that preventing a repeat of the 9/11 attack required and continues to require a new paradigm. It requires viewing Islamic Fascism as one unified enemy with multiple fronts, some of which may be more active than others.
And for us, we appreciate his steadfast willingness to pursue the right course of action in the face of polls and in the face of asinine fifth column opposition from a hostile press and a totally disconnected intellectual class. I only wish he would make his case more often and more loudly - lest we forget.
Sublime. Thank you.
I have to ask: how often does he have to say it? I mean, seriously, I've heard it from him and other administration officials so often it actually seems ridiculous to say he should make the case more often. How many fucking times does the same obvious case have to be made, especially in an environment where the press corps has made it absolutely clear that they are attempting to be "neutral" and that good news and clear thinking with simple historical context equals "taking the administration line."
I mean, seriously, this has been said and explained in exactly the same way thousands of times in the last two+ years, and STILL we have people in the press repeating falsehoods that have been thoroughly debunked AND....
Gah. I'm ranting again.
Repetition is the mother of learning. For those who refuse to see the link, no amount of repetition is enough. For those of us who see the link clearly, no more need be said. But for about a third to half of the electorate (which includes my wife), they don't pay enough attention. They need a constant diet of President Bush making his case - again, and again, and again, and again, and again.......
I posted it as a primary article on my blog.
We need more money for veterans health care,
There were no al qaeda cells there before we went into Iraq,
We need more troops but from other countries.
Our guys are too fatigued,
I didn’t see anything to turn public opinion,.
This is the President’s war,
There weren’t any WMD’s,
We need to give the Iraqi’s a time table,
Halliburton is suspect to one billion + dollars,
There were no terrorists until we went into Iraq,
This is a recruitment training center for terrorists,
They keep on coming,
That’s the way it is.
Here’s the point,
We are less safe.
We have to protect the homeland,
We have to protect the bridges, power plants.
This was a status quo speech,
I’m disappointed,
This speech on the ground didn’t turn over a new page,
It's the President’s War.
It's like her own continuous teleprompter.