New reader Joe writes:
George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes in the Iraq war, but they are not what you may think. The war with Iraq was ABSOLUTELY necessary. I just wish that Bush had never mentioned WMD. He didn’t need it. As soon as Iraq told the weapons inspectors to get out we should have bombed them then, without hesitation just for stopping the weapons inspections.
Iraq lost the Gulf War, and one of their agreements was that our weapons inspectors could inspect until WE were satisfied. That never happened. Of course Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack. What part of “Death to America” don’t you understand.
We told Saddam that his military could fly in Iraq as long as it was not in either of the “no fly zones.” He used that loophole to attack his own citizens from the air when they tried to overthrow him, and we did nothing about it. We should have. In the long run it would have saved more lives, just like when Clinton FINALLY sent troops into the former Yugoslavia. It finally ended the bloodshed.
In Iraq, we didn’t send in enough troops and we didn’t attack Syria and Iran with EVERYTHING short of nuclear weapons. Those would have been okay too, if there weren’t so many other countries that also have nuclear weapons. You don’t get peace by talking; you get peace by being strong.
So here I am criticizing the Bush administration just like most of the bloggers I’ve read, its just from the other side of the fence. I guess maybe that’s what blogs are best at after all…venting.
My rebuttal:
Well, let’s get started, not that any of this will make a difference.
As soon as Iraq told the weapons inspectors to get out we should have bombed them then, without hesitation just for stopping the weapons inspections.
Right out of the gate we have a problem. Here’s what Scott Ritter, who headed some of these inspection teams, has to say about this:
With Berger facing one last opportunity for decisive military action, Butler was instructed to organize inspection activity designed to provoke Iraq into breaking its agreement to cooperate fully with UNSCOM.
Deliberately controversial inspection sites would be selected using intelligence provided by the United States and Britain. The most provocative act, however, would be left to UNSCOM; without consulting the Security Council, and acting at the behest of the United States, Butler declared that the sensitive site modalities were null and void.
During a Dec. 8, 1998 meeting with UNSCOM inspectors in Baghdad, the Iraqis were notified of the nullification of the sensitive site modalities, expressing shock at this declaration. The following day, when UNSCOM, inspectors attempted to gain entry to a Ba’ath Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, the Iraqis invited them in, providing the sensitive site modalities applied. The inspectors refused, saying the modalities no longer were in effect. Iraq then denied the team access, and the inspectors were withdrawn from the site.
On Dec. 11, 1998, while inspectors still were working in Iraq, Butler again met with Berger to discuss how best to frame Butler’s report to the Security Council regarding Iraq’s level of cooperation with the inspectors.
Following this meeting, in which both Butler and Berger had decided that the Iraqi blockage of inspectors at the Ba’ath Party site was damning enough to justify a U.S. military strike — despite the fact that as the two men spoke, Iraq was providing inspectors with immediate access to a series of sensitive security installations.
In order to prevent an accumulation of further in stances of Iraqi cooperation, Butler, acting on Berger’s ad vice, ordered the inspection team withdrawn from Iraq.
Berger reported the intended tone of the Butler report to President Clinton, who was at that time in Israel.
The president, on Sunday Dec. 13, 1998, gave the orders for a military strike against Iraq.
On Monday, in keeping with the script, Butler drafted his report to the Security Council about Iraq’s cooperation with the work of UNSCOM.
Once the language had been fine tuned to U.S. specifications, Butler released the report to the Security Council members and the secretary general. That evening — under direct orders from the acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and in violation of the assurances he had given France and Russia that no such action would be made without consulting the Security Council — Butler ordered all UNSCOM inspectors withdrawn from Iraq.
Even though the current script says that “Saddam kicked out the inspectors,” even the State Department denies this:
Myth: UNSCOM inspectors behaved badly and deserved to be thrown out of Iraq.
Fact: The inspectors were not thrown out of Iraq. Iraq’s obstructionism and refusal to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, who were carrying out a UN Security Council mandate, prevented the inspectors from fulfilling their mission and they had no choice but to leave.
The thing that I find interesting about this line, that Saddam had to be punished for violating United Nations resolutions, is that in no other way do any of the President’s supporters seem to care about the UN. Sending John Bolton as Ambassador pretty much sums up how the Conservatives feel about the UN when that organization isn’t a convenient excuse for them.
Meanwhile, other countries such as Israel continue to defy UN resolutions and I’m sure no one over there is worried about U.S. bombers showing up any time soon.
I just wish that Bush had never mentioned WMD. He didn’t need it.
And yet he did. Over and over again. He mentioned it despite plenty of people telling him it wasn’t true. He had to bring it up because the UN Resolution argument was so weak. His PNAC handlers wanted Saddam’s head, and they were going to get it, by any means necessary.
And now we know that this information was false. Actually, some of us, who were actually paying attention to what those naysayers were saying at the time knew all along the WMDs weren’t there. But shucks, by that time it didn’t matter; we were already got the war we wanted.
Should we investigate whether or not pre-war intelligence was misused by the Administration? Nah, that’s “on the back burner”, according to Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS). No hurry on finding out if the administration lied to the public. Especially when so much of the public doesn’t seem to care.
Of course Iraq was part of the 9/11 attack. What part of “Death to America” don’t you understand.
Even your President denies this. (Granted, he does so within the context of denying he ever said Iraq WAS tied to 9/11, which he and his people most certainly did.) Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban were behind the attack. Exactly zero of the hijackers were from Iraq. Fifteen of them were from Saudi Arabia, who we are still very good friends with (despite this fact and despite the fact that they too are a repressive regime with little concept of human rights.) While I believe Saddam certain didn’t mind the attack on America, there is absolutely no evidence that he was connected to it. None.
In Iraq, we didn’t send in enough troops and we didn’t attack Syria and Iran with EVERYTHING short of nuclear weapons. Those would have been okay too, if there weren’t so many other countries that also have nuclear weapons. You don’t get peace by talking; you get peace by being strong.
And what had Iran and Syria done at that point? They weren’t involved in 9/11 either. Nor were they connected with any of Iraq’s UN Resolutions. Just because they’re there and convenient to bomb? Do we just start bombing and not stop until everyone else cries “Uncle Sam”? How do you settle your everyday affairs, by constantly threatening violence to everyone around you? Were you wanting France bombed too, for not wanting to play along?
Your diatribe is shocking, not just for the amount of information you are simply wrong on, but for the limits to which you’re willing to go because of it. It’s hard to take seriously the idea of Memorial Day being a sort of patriotic holiday, when so many of our current patriots have no memory to speak of.
