August 16 2004
THE "RUSH TO WAR": It's a truism among
liberals today that President Bush "rushed to war"
in Iraq. The Kerry
campaign and the media sling the phrase almost daily
as a dual indictment that President Bush moved so quickly
on Iraq he 1) failed to win over vital allies (i.e. France
& Germany) and 2) failed to allow enough time to develop
a plan to win the peace.
To get some perspective on just how badly
this revises history, click
can quibble with our liberal friends over the administration's
post-combat assumptions and executions in Iraq, but whatever
mistakes have or haven't been made there are not the result
of 'moving too quickly.'
Likewise, despite what John Kerry, Howard
Dean and Michael Moore want the public to believe, there
is no amount of additional time, cajoling, diplomacy, or
ass-kissing that would have won the approval of either France
or Germany to use meaningful force against Iraq. None.
Let's remember also that the resumption
of UN inspections in Iraq - now cited by the Democrats as
the useful and definitive work cut short by Bush's "rush
to war" - only occurred in the first place because
of George W. Bush's leadership.
even that misses the point. The Bush administration's goal,
stated clearly time and time again, wasn't merely to get
Iraq to return to another round of cat-and-mouse with UN
inspectors. The administration had concluded, rightly, that
inspections would never provide America and the world with
the level of certainty required in a post-September 11 world
that Saddam did not have and was not pursuing weapons of
the goal was forcing a fundamental change in the behavior
of the Iraqi regime that included complete and full disclosure
of all weapons programs and compliance with all previous
UN resolutions. The Bush administration stated
this unequivocally in September 2002:
"This is not a matter of inspections.
It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security
Council resolutions," McClellan said in a written
statement. "It is time for the Security Council to
Resolution 1441 did call for "an enhanced inspection
regime," the language used in the Resolution - at the
insistence of the United States - provided Iraq with "a
final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations
under relevant resolutions of the Council" and declared
that Iraq would "face serious consequences as a result
of its continued violations of its obligations."
Shortly thereafter Iraq produced a 12,000
page WMD declaration which everyone
including Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei found lacking,
yet the Bush administration declared openly that this was
not an automatic "trigger for war." Another three
months of negotiation would fruitlessly pass before the
invasion finally began.
Again, we can argue with our liberal friends
as to why intelligence estimates from around the world were
faulty (if that is indeed truly what they were) and we can
all speculate all we want as to the reasons why Saddam refused
to comply when it became utterly apparent to everyone in
the world that the threat of action by the United States
was not only real but imminent.
shouldn't be debatable is that the Bush administration's
goal was to end the charade with Iraq once and for all.
They made it clear they would no longer tolerate half-measures,
deceptions and obstructions. Either Saddam opened up completely
or he was gone.
Marhsall are now arguing that the Bush administration
"gamed the process" and the President lied "when
he said he needed the muscle of the resolution to force
the inspectors back in and have some hope of settling the
crisis short of war." Go back and read
the speeches. That's a fundamental misinterpretation
of the Bush administration policy.
left is right about one thing: the Bush administration did
use 9/11 as a "pretext" for war with Iraq - but
only in the sense that the terrible attacks suffered that
day provided an epiphany for this administration about the
world we live in and the dangerous threats we face around
though Iraq wasn't directly involved in 9/11, the attack
served as a wake up call about the danger of tolerating
a continued (and interrelated) threat like Saddam Hussein
who possessed the relationships, ability, ambition and desire
to do catastrophic harm to America.
ALERT: From the "they-just-don't-get-it-and-they're-going-to-get-us-killed"
file, here is a stunningly muddle-headed column that ran
in Friday's Cincinnati Enquirer titled "Olympics
could inspire a truce on terror:"
"With the 2004 Olympics returning
home to Greece, maybe this could be a time for all countries
to proclaim a truce against terrorism.
Can people from different countries
really get along when they put their political and religious
differences aside? I think the answer to that question
is "Don't judge a person until you've walked a mile
in their shoes." First we need to get to know one
another, before we can approach the topics that create
So let's hope the expectations of
these Olympics Games bring people together for friendship
and fellowship, with a chance for different cultures to
understand one another on a more personal level, instead
of how we are perceived by our governments."
sure Osama has suspended his plans of detonating a suitcase
nuke in Washington DC while the games are on. No doubt he's
sitting in a cave somewhere eagerly awaiting the Michael
Phelps - Ian Thorpe showdown in the 200 freestyle tonight.
not. - T. Bevan 11:00 am Link
to a Friend