Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Oh, real quick about the Iraqi war and President Bush's press conference:
Critics have taken the recent increase in the death toll and have stated "Aha! See, I told you they weren't going to welcome us with open arms!" Another favorite is "Why didn't you plan what the Iraqi government was going to look like BEFORE you invaded?" Finally, there's the old "NO WMD! BUSH LIED! HE JUST WENT IN TO AVENGE HIS DADDY!" line.
My main source for debunking the first two claims will be this ABC news poll of Iraqis taken on March 15, 2004.
First, Bush critics have taken lines such as this...
"The Iraqis will welcome us as liberators"
....and interpreted it to mean this....
"Everything will be peachy keen after Saddam is taken out!"
Sorry, but no one ever said the latter.
I don't know why this resistence has been a surprise to anybody. It took the Allied Powers years and hundreds of thousands of lives to clean up the Nazi resistence in Germany. There are a lot of groups that would like to grab power in Iraq. Our job is to make sure that the government that is set up can handle the affairs of the Iraqi people. We cannot leave a day sooner.
But have the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators?
Let's find out.
The Kurds love us, to be sure. 80% of them are glad we're there, and hope we stay. The Arabs however are split, with a majority opposing the invasion and a two-thirds majority opposing the presence of coalition forces.
So have we been welcomed with open arms and a smile that we're there? Not exactly.
However, does that mean they didn't want us to go in? This is not neccessarily true either. It may be that Iraqis would rather that they have dealt with Saddam Hussein instead of the U.S. Well, if it were up to us, that's how it would've happened. Saddam had other ideas.
Also, an overwhelming majority of ALL Iraqis oppose attacks on U.S. forces. Could they be hiding their real answers due to fear that we'll pull a Saddam and assassinate them for daring to oppose us? Possibly. They might also be hiding their answers so that they won't be killed if an anti-American group takes power. So let's just take the Iraqis at their word.
I think the answer therefore is neither of the above. I think the Iraqis don't like that we're helping them. Like all people, I think they'd rather that they had dealt with their problems. However, I think they know we're there to help them.
Bush has also gotten a lot of criticism for not having a government plan ready before he went into Iraq. This one is utterly absurd.
I know this is a radical thought and all, but shouldn't the planning for how the Iraqi interim government have some involvement from, oh, I don't know, IRAQIS?! Why would Bush go into Iraq knowing how he was going to set up their government? Shouldn't the Iraqis be involved in that plan? Sheesh.
Besides, we went in for national security reasons. We're establishing a democracy in Iraq to protect that security. The nice humanitarian stuff is a bonus.
Which leads me to the good old Bush misled the country about Iraq's WMD threat. We didn't find any WMD, therefore Bush lied.
First, I find it ridiculous that Bush is being taken to task for allegedly not reacting to non-specific intelligence before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden wanted to kill Americans in Washington and hijack airplanes to do so. The reason is because the VERY SAME PEOPLE are hating on him for acting on specific intelligence that stated Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Second, I have a source that is certainly not loyal to Bush that has said "Everybody thought Saddam had WMD".
That source? Counterterrorism czar turned Bush critic Richard Clarke.
Yep, the man who has been touted by liberals as the man Bush refused to listen to because he wanted to go after Iraq has stated that even HE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Where he and Bush differed was on how the Iraqi threat should've been accessed. Clarke stated that he didn't think Saddam was stupid enough to hand off WMD to terrorist groups, because he'd lose power if he did so.
Well, Bush must've listened to Clarke's objections, because in a State of the Union speech he said the following:
"Trusting in the sanity of Saddam Hussein is not an option."
So Clarke said Saddam wouldn't do something because it would be bad for Saddam, and Bush's stance was that that's not good enough.
If you're going to give Clarke's words weight, you can't win the "Bush misled the country about Iraq" argument. They are totally incompatible.
Critics have taken the recent increase in the death toll and have stated "Aha! See, I told you they weren't going to welcome us with open arms!" Another favorite is "Why didn't you plan what the Iraqi government was going to look like BEFORE you invaded?" Finally, there's the old "NO WMD! BUSH LIED! HE JUST WENT IN TO AVENGE HIS DADDY!" line.
My main source for debunking the first two claims will be this ABC news poll of Iraqis taken on March 15, 2004.
First, Bush critics have taken lines such as this...
"The Iraqis will welcome us as liberators"
....and interpreted it to mean this....
"Everything will be peachy keen after Saddam is taken out!"
Sorry, but no one ever said the latter.
I don't know why this resistence has been a surprise to anybody. It took the Allied Powers years and hundreds of thousands of lives to clean up the Nazi resistence in Germany. There are a lot of groups that would like to grab power in Iraq. Our job is to make sure that the government that is set up can handle the affairs of the Iraqi people. We cannot leave a day sooner.
But have the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators?
Let's find out.
The Kurds love us, to be sure. 80% of them are glad we're there, and hope we stay. The Arabs however are split, with a majority opposing the invasion and a two-thirds majority opposing the presence of coalition forces.
So have we been welcomed with open arms and a smile that we're there? Not exactly.
However, does that mean they didn't want us to go in? This is not neccessarily true either. It may be that Iraqis would rather that they have dealt with Saddam Hussein instead of the U.S. Well, if it were up to us, that's how it would've happened. Saddam had other ideas.
Also, an overwhelming majority of ALL Iraqis oppose attacks on U.S. forces. Could they be hiding their real answers due to fear that we'll pull a Saddam and assassinate them for daring to oppose us? Possibly. They might also be hiding their answers so that they won't be killed if an anti-American group takes power. So let's just take the Iraqis at their word.
I think the answer therefore is neither of the above. I think the Iraqis don't like that we're helping them. Like all people, I think they'd rather that they had dealt with their problems. However, I think they know we're there to help them.
Bush has also gotten a lot of criticism for not having a government plan ready before he went into Iraq. This one is utterly absurd.
I know this is a radical thought and all, but shouldn't the planning for how the Iraqi interim government have some involvement from, oh, I don't know, IRAQIS?! Why would Bush go into Iraq knowing how he was going to set up their government? Shouldn't the Iraqis be involved in that plan? Sheesh.
Besides, we went in for national security reasons. We're establishing a democracy in Iraq to protect that security. The nice humanitarian stuff is a bonus.
Which leads me to the good old Bush misled the country about Iraq's WMD threat. We didn't find any WMD, therefore Bush lied.
First, I find it ridiculous that Bush is being taken to task for allegedly not reacting to non-specific intelligence before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden wanted to kill Americans in Washington and hijack airplanes to do so. The reason is because the VERY SAME PEOPLE are hating on him for acting on specific intelligence that stated Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Second, I have a source that is certainly not loyal to Bush that has said "Everybody thought Saddam had WMD".
That source? Counterterrorism czar turned Bush critic Richard Clarke.
Yep, the man who has been touted by liberals as the man Bush refused to listen to because he wanted to go after Iraq has stated that even HE thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. Where he and Bush differed was on how the Iraqi threat should've been accessed. Clarke stated that he didn't think Saddam was stupid enough to hand off WMD to terrorist groups, because he'd lose power if he did so.
Well, Bush must've listened to Clarke's objections, because in a State of the Union speech he said the following:
"Trusting in the sanity of Saddam Hussein is not an option."
So Clarke said Saddam wouldn't do something because it would be bad for Saddam, and Bush's stance was that that's not good enough.
If you're going to give Clarke's words weight, you can't win the "Bush misled the country about Iraq" argument. They are totally incompatible.
Comments:
Post a Comment
