Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Revising History - Operation Iraqi Freedom

The people who prefer peace with genocide over taking risks for freedom have told themselves their spin about President Bush's decision to free Iraq so many times that now they believe it. Preventing Saddam Hussein from using the weapons of mass destruction he had was one of the prime reasons for the war against Saddam. And it wasn't fiction; it was based on the intelligence available. And it wasn't the only reason. Hyperactive Glen Reynolds, the Instapundit, did a review on April 14 of the broader case for freeing Iraq. OK... it required an invasion to do it.
Must've missed the 2003 State of the Union address, where Bush said: Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .
... these remarks by President Bush to the U.N. General Assembly from 2002: The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
And Bush titled it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Remember? Reynolds has much more.


Ron said...

Major premise (3) Free Iraq from Saddam Hussein. I gave a couple of quotes. Glen Reynolds has several more.

Too bad we couldn't use the information we got in 2004 when we had to make decisions in 2002 and 03. Monday morning quarterbacks make all the right calls.
Every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had them. Even he thought so.

"Democracies are no more immune to terrorism than any other form of government,"

Wrong. The record is there for all to see. Democracies don't fight each other and seldom start wars. If there is a counterexample there is only one. Democracies are attacked by dictators. And this democracy decided to end the genocide on his own people by Saddam Hussein. But the record is - more democracies means fewer wars. And the seedbed of terrorism in 2005 is the governments that don't allow their people any participation. Remove Iraq from that category.

"Incident of Islamic terrorism have climbed alarmingly all over the world in the last two years. "

We invited them to Iraq instead of the US. I like having them there. They went there because they know this is the Big One. If they lose there they are out for a generation. No other country has invited them in. This is it.

Criteria for Success: (1) Hussein killed thousands of his own people. The number of mass graves is huge - can't remember - hundreds of mass graves. He is out of business.

(2) Watch the chain reaction. Libya volunteered to end their nuclear weapon program. After Saddam fell.

Yesterday the army of Syria left Lebanon after 29 years occupation.

Mubarak of Egypt ordered the constitution to be changed so someone can run against him.

That is success. It wouldn't have happened if Saddam were allowed to sit in his palaces. Some people have even given Bush some credit!

Ron said...


Bush said in the 2003 State of the Union that there reasons to take out Saddam.
(1) He had used chemical weapons in the past, was developing them and intended to use them.
(2) To free the people of Iraq.

It is an honest quote to say that Bush spoke about #2. That fact that he spoke at length about #1 does not mean he didn't say #2.

True, he emphasized the WMD situation. But Just to make sure you would notice Bush named the military engagement "Operation Iraqu Freedom."

Ron said...

There is evidence that Russia helped get rid of weapons in early 2003. Top Russians were in Iraq then.

And we did find some WMD. Well, you might say they found us. For example on May 17, 2004: "BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

"Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered."

Number of terrorist attacks - I read the news every day and have never seen an account that the world-wide total was increasing and you don't give a source. But my first concern is the United States. Today the Washington Post said that there is improvement.

--quote-- U.S. Sees Drop in Terrorist Threats
Al Qaeda Focusing Attacks in Iraq and Europe, Officials Say

By Dana Priest and Spencer Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 1, 2005; A01

Reports of credible terrorist threats against the United States are at their lowest level since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to U.S. intelligence officials and federal and state law enforcement authorities.

The intelligence community's daily threat assessment, developed after the terrorist attacks to keep policymakers informed, currently lists, on average, 25 to 50 percent fewer threats against domestic targets than it typically did over the past two years, said one senior counterterrorism official. -- end quote --

Don't you agree that the protecting the US is our first priority?