President Bush, Iraq and the Election

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    David Limbaugh
    Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2004

    The conventional wisdom is that President Bush's handling of Iraq is a major negative on his re-election resume, which he must explain - and justify - during his convention speech.

    I recognize that Democrats and the media have successfully created the perception that Iraq has been a disaster. But despite the many problems there, I reject that conclusion.

    President Bush was not only justified in going to war against Iraq; he had a duty to do so. All the world's intelligence services, not just our own, were convinced Saddam was developing WMD. He repeatedly violated U.N. resolutions, defied weapons inspectors and filed a phony 12,000-page WMD compliance report, thereby deliberately failing to meet his burden of proving he had destroyed the WMDs we know he once had - and used. He shot at our planes in no-fly zones, harbored terrorists and subsidized the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He had connections with Al Qaeda (I didn't say with 9-11) and had an abiding hatred for America, on which he had declared war, lest we forget.

    As for the prosecution of the first phase of the war, it was virtually flawless, as wars go. We removed Saddam in short order, with a minimum of casualties, and with precision-smart bombs designed to minimize civilian casualties and collateral destruction.

    We then began to rebuild the infrastructure and help Iraq transition to self-rule. All kinds of positive things have occurred there every day from feeding the people to improvements in education - things you rarely read about in the mainstream media. We have helped democratize a brutal, tyrannical regime in the Middle East. Is that not headline-worthy? Is that not something a president should be able to boast about in his re-election bid?

    Not so fast, you say. We are in a quagmire now. We didn't anticipate the second phase of the war. "President Bush didn't," says John Kerry, "have a plan to win the peace" - whatever that means.

    Even President Bush, say his critics, is now admitting he made serious mistakes in failing to anticipate the resistance we would face after the first phase of the war. But let's look at what he actually said.

    He told Time magazine, "I was convinced you were trying to force me to say it was a mistake to go into Iraq, which I wasn't going to do. … Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success - being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day. I couldn't have sat down and said to you, 'By the way, we're going to be so victorious so quickly that we'll end up having to fight another third of the Baathists over the next year in order to bring liberty to the country.'"

    Yes, the president said he didn't anticipate that our incredible military success would result in the religious fanatics collapsing into the cities and then mounting a second phase of resistance. But as I read it, he's also saying that no one could have anticipated this unfolding of events. And indeed, no one could have.

    Even if we had anticipated that international terrorists and local religious fanatics would try to disrupt our effort to rebuild and democratize Iraq, what could we have done to avoid it?

    The assumption seems to be that we could have avoided American casualties if we'd better planned. But we've been engaged in this second phase for over a year now, and we're still sustaining casualties. Doesn't that alone tell you that we couldn't have avoided all casualties no matter how well we planned?

    Our armchair quarterbacks constantly hold our intelligence agencies and our military to impossibly high standards. No matter how much we always want to blame ourselves, we are not going to be able to prevent all terrorist attacks or all war casualties. We are up against an enemy with no conscience, which targets civilians, uses civilians and Mosques as shields, and engages in urban guerrilla warfare. No matter how prescient our planning, we still would have had to face the same enemy using the same tactics.

    If, as a people, we don't have the stomach to endure the inevitable difficulties we've faced in Iraq, how will we have the will to endure the war on terror over the long haul? We've got to quit beating ourselves up and re-orient ourselves to the difficulties of war.

    In the meantime, let's reject the media line that Iraq is an asterisk on President Bush's foreign policy resume and cut him a little slack.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/31/95043.shtml
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Jimmy is back with a vengeance. :thewave:
     
  3. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    I agree with the above article.

    But where do we go from here? Have we lost the initiative in the War on Terror? BTW, should we not call it what it really is: the War on Islamic Terror?

    After 911, we strengthened homeland security, liberated Afghanistan, fought the French in the UN, and liberated Iraq. But the war is far from over. What should be the next major step in the War on Islamic Terror?
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356

    I would agree with your statement in that there are other kinds of terrorism. Ireland comes to mind. However when one utters the word "terrorist" i can guarantee that 90% of the people think Islam. Even those that are of the religion see this as so (the moderates anyway, the radicals feel they are Ala's Sword).
     
  5. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    I would even call it the War on Islam.

    I know what you mean, but Kofi and the UN French tickler brigade could have won decisively in the UN and it wouldn't have mattered nought!

    Next step assuming Bush wins is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and to make a concerted effort to topple the Shi'ite Mullahs ruling there, perhaps using some degree of force by early Summer, 2005.

    I think we will also stage a force in Sudan by next Fall.


    Imagine perhaps a grand design where we can surround every major Middle Eastern state and base an attack from two or more fronts on each one.

    Every one of these potential enemy states... that being Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, are vulnerable from at least 2 land fronts, and many from the sea.

    Clearly, we are in a solid strategic position.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I agree with Limbaugh's assessment. Heck, nearly every other week I post the 'good news from Iraq' stuff. Which reminds me, think I saw that this morning.

    Yup, it's from Monday, I'm sure more good things, (we've heard all the bad), have happened since. But it's so long, I know I can't quote all of it, but I'll catch all I can.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005610

     
  7. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Not only that but Ireland was never at war with Western civilization!

    The Muslims truly have it over the Irish or indeed any other society for committing grotesque acts of random mass murder in this day and age.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Not to mention that the IRA had a specific goal in mind-UK out of Ireland and full freedom, (while I never did go along with IRA mentality, kind of like a slave revolt, only a slight overstatement.)

    I think the Chechyan rebellion might have started more like the IRA, but now seems through religion to have morphed into radical Islamicism. I hope I'm wrong, but doesn't look like it, with the Black whatever movement of female suicide bombers and what looks to be obvious al-Quaida links.

    The radical Islamicists do not have a specific goal-the target keeps moving. After the USS Cole, bin Laden would begin to throw out the Israel problem-though there was no mention of that in the 70's or 80's or early 90's. Binny has been around and active since at least the 80's. Truth to tell, they seem to have reverted to the pre-Crusade era of convert or die. History teachers have been teaching the evils of the Crusades for I really have no idea, but since 9/11, historians, especially Phd candidates have been going back to search out some of the precursors to war. May well be that the Crusade self-flaggelation of the West was a form of anti-Catholocism. Interesting.
     
  9. dumphauler
    Offline

    dumphauler Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    wisconsin
    Ratings:
    +5
    Look I voted for bush, In fact I'v been voteing republican as long as I'v been able to vote -reagan- because of abortion. But bush has realy proved himself unworthy to be presadent to me. If Al Gore was presadent now we would have gone after Bin Laden And we would have Invaded afganistan after they didn't turn him over but:: We would not have gone into Iraq And what's More YOU GUY'S WOULDN"T EVEN BE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW!!! You wouldn't even care!!! That's how impotaint invading IRAQ was. Why arn't you talking about Invading IRAN or SYRIA? , N.KOREA NOW? ?? I'm sure If we ever do though we can count on your 100% support because boy whatever bush say's is the word of god- he wouldn't lie about anything!
    Hasn't Bush done anthing rite? He gave all that money to Africa for AIDS- HEY! good job George!! Tarifed the crap out of cheap steel Import's to help our Company's here at home, supported Pro Life causes GOOD JOB GEORGE!!
    But that Can't Make up for all the dead we have on our hand's now. In order to have what we want in the middle east we would have to kill off whole country's I'M SERIOUS! the hate is preached to the young they grow up and the cycle continues we can't control what people think. All we did was stir up a hornet's nest by Invading IRAQ.
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Actually, I think we would be talking about it. Just like we HAVE BEEN talking about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea. We are looking for bin Laden, but have to keep moving.

    Tonight it was reported that Sats have located what could be an Iranian nuclear facility. The clock is ticking. 7 weeks til election, then off to the UN for more blather, then we'll see.

    Since you feel so strongly, you'll have to vote your conscience, just like the rest of us.
     

Share This Page