Here's an open challenge to those who oppose the war in Iraq: Anyone who thinks the war was a mistake should spend the next year-and-a-half in the Middle East explaining why America is wrong to bring freedom and democracy to an area of the world that has never known it.
Dave Thul, Chaska.
No, Dave, I think you should go to a corner in Baghdad and explain to residents how we have brought freedom and democracy to Iraq.
PS. Don't forget your body armour.
13 comments:
yes they were so much better off with Saddam and his sons in charge. Those torture rooms were just a sign of love... he doesn't need to go, besides what about all the devlopments that are going on in the middle east as a result of our "illegal invasion". Oh and apparently all those 8 million Iraqis that voted in the election they had and that thanked our government and Duyba were complete morons. Once again your elitism bleeds through. Your always right and the other side is always wrong and you always need to explain to us why you think were such morons.
See new post.
I am going to Iraq-that's what the Star Trib left out. I volunteered to go with my National Guard unit. And yes, I will bring the body armor. Would you care to accept my challenge?
Dave Thul
Chaska
Dave,
This makes you just about the first pro-Iraq war person who is actually going to Iraq or has a child there that Spottie has run into in a long time. I wish you health and safety. But no, I won't go to Iraq to tell the Iraqi people that the US has brought them freedom, because we haven't. As Spottie said in a recent post, democracy is more than just an election. And why did we choose Iraq out of all the murderous depotic regimes on the face of the earth to liberate? It just doesn't add up to Spottie.
In any event, it isn't worth it to Spottie to sacrifice one of his pups or his friends for such a confused and incoherent policy.
But Spottie does congratulate you for the courage of your convictions. I tell you what, Dave, take Spottie's email to Iraq and send his readers your observations from time to time. I promise to post them; I can't guarantee that I will agree with everything you write about policy, but I'll post it.
PS. I'm glad you have body armour, and I think it is regrettable that the Strib edited out that you were on the way to Iraq.
A quick history of Iraq since the Gulf war will show any reasonable person that Saddam had to go. His connections to terrorism are beyond dispute.
I am the first to admit that during combat I woke up every day hoping that this would be the day that we found the WMD. But everyone, including fmr Pres Clinton and fmr Sec of State Albright stated categorically that Iraq had WMD. It was the justification for a dozen major airstrikes during the 90's. Did they lie too?
Let me use this analogy-if a man points a gun at you, and the police shoot him dead...does it matter if he was found to have no bullets in the gun? Does anyone call the police liars for making the decision to shoot?
I don't like leaving my family, and I wish for a world that doesn't know war, but I feel that the war on terrorism is the WWII of my generation. And I believe it enough to put my life on the line, not just my words on a blog.
Dave Thul
Chaska, MN
Dave,
We, well the world through the UN, did in fact have weapons inspectors in Iraq, apparently seeking the assistance of the US intelligence service. And, whether you will admit it or not, the world is pretty unhappy with our unilateral action and not waiting for the weapon inspectors to finish. Spottie says this impedes the war on terrorism, not helps it.
Spottie knows that a lot of people don't like the UN, but as part of the UN Charter, we have agreed not to start a war against anybody unless they are a present and immediate threat against us. Iraq was not.
The police analogy is inapposite. Iraq was not a threat to the US, and the "intelligence" to say it was was ginned up, clearly.
Bringing democracy to Iraq is just a fig leaf now for a truly misguided adventure. We have neither the troops nor the will, nor the vision for that matter, to rescue Iraq now. The result is that we are leaving people like you, Dave, twisting in the wind, for which I am profoundly sorry.
And I have to say, the fact that an old dog like Spottie is not going to Iraq does not deprive him of the right to an opinion, or to criticize.
Spottie renews his offer to have you report for this blog's readers from Iraq.
So many replies come to mind, but I'll stick to the facts. The evidence of WMD was 'clearly ginned up' in your words. I assume that you mean that it was ginned up by Fmr Pres Clinton then. He did after all spend 7 years of his presidency telling us how dangerous Saddam was, and calling in airstrikes repeatedly. This was apparently all based on lies too.
Of course. I forgot; it's Clinton's fault.
damn right it is, there were 10 terrorist attacks under his watch and he did nothing. But Kosovo was a great success. What would you expect from a guy that couldn't keep his dick in his pants even in the freaking oval (oral) office. He's a great role model...
Scottie's response can be translated as 'don't go confusing me with the truth'. Here's a quote to illustrate my point-
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
Hillary Clinton, Oct 8, 2002
Was she part of Bush's 'lie' too?
Dave Thul
Chaska
Dave,
If you expect Spottie to defend everything that the Clinton administration did in foreign policy, you’ll be disappointed. My point is only that conservatives blame everything on Clinton. Spottie, on the other hand, thinks that what you do and what happens on your own watch is your responsibility. It is the Bush administration that made the half-ass invasion of Iraq with all of the tragic miscalculations for us and the Iraqis. Bush’s most influential advisers said it would be a “cakewalk.” (Cakewalk Adelman is a family friend, BTW, but that doesn’t change the tragedy of the blunders.)
The invasion of Iraq made us divert our attention from Afghanistan, not to mention Iran and North Korea. I really think that Bush thought that if he could show Iran and North Korea how tough he was with Iraq that they would just fold their nuclear tents and go away. Obviously, just the reverse has happened.
You must also not think that Spottie is always non-interventionist. The world failed to do anything about Rwanda until it was far too late; the current genocide in the Sudan cries out for intervention, which Spottie would support. This is also the tenth anniversary of the massacre of Muslims by the Serbs at Srebrenica, another situation where the US and the world dawdled while thousands died. Rwanda and Srebrenica happened on Clinton’s watch; he has to accept a measure of the blame and obloquy for what happened.
But Iraq was not sold to us as a humanitarian intervention, and it certainly hasn’t turned out to be one, either.
You make several good points, and I agre with most of them. But, you have once again sidestepped my question. If it is your contention the Pres Bush lied to the public by claiming that Iraq had WMD, you are accusing him of a very serious, and very impeachable, offense. But you offer no argument in favor of this, no explanation of why Bush is a liar for Iraq's WMD and why Clinton is not a liar for making the same claims.
I appreciate opinions different from my own, which is why I read your blog. But if you are just making accusations that aren't backed up by fact(or a statements that just don't follow a logical course) than you are no different than Limbaugh or Coulter on the far right, making wild exagerations for entertainment.
Dave Thul
Chaska
Dave,
To Spottie, one of the easiest ways to distinguish Clinton administration rhetoric from Bush administration rhetoric is that Bush & Co. pushed, hectored, and scared the American public into war. From administration insiders from Paul O’Neill on down, we find out that W. was committed to going to war in Iraq from the day he took office. There are also a couple of specific things:
The phony uranium yellowcake deal in Niger was flagged as phony by a lot of people, including people who wrote articles available to mere morals like you and Spottie before we invaded Iraq, yet it was quoted by several members of the administration as gospel. Bush told the American public that “the British had learned” about this purchase. Where did the British learn it? From the US. Joe Wilson, the courageous ambassador to Iraq in 1991, who told the administration that the deal was fake substantially prior to the invasion; not only was he smeared by the administration, but administration leakers ended his wife’s covert career as well.
The aluminum tubes that could only be used for uranium centrifuges because they were anodized? It turns out that not only couldn’t they be used as centrifuges because they were anodized, they were the wrong diameter to be suitable for use as centrifuges. And apparently there were weapons experts in the administration who told higher ups about that, including Condoleeza Rice, but apparently she “forgot.”
Spottie commends this web article to you by Tom Maertens, a former NSC type who lives in Mankato now: http://www.tommaertens.com/writing/stppress/3192004.html.
Spottie’s grandma used to say “When you burn your butt, you have to sit on the blisters.” The Bush administration and regrettably our country have just begun to sit on the blisters.
Post a Comment