August 31, 2004
McCain's Obama
Tonight at the Republican National Convention John McCain had his Obama moment, heat-sinking his way to the truth about Bush’s decision to invade Iraq:
The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.
Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.
It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.
And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.
Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.
The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.
We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times.
By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.
Most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability that they may someday possess these rights.
I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble.
It's that simple -- still.
Posted by John-Paul Pagano at August 31, 2004 03:44 AMThat has always been my feeling. You will never convince the Bush-haters of it though. I predict they will be lining up any minute to insult him in this thread.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 08:07 AMThe people-who-don’t-blindly-accept-whatever-nonsense-the-GOP-claims (aka Bush haters) have arrived.
Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.
This is the weak fulcrum of McCain’s argument. Saddam didn’t have the weapons, but he would have got them eventually. Maybe. Pretty flimsy grounds for going to war. What about North Korea?
The fact that an enemy of the US, who had vowed to attacks us and as we have learned was planning terrorist attacks against the US, who was attacking our planes as often as possible, who was regarded by the human rights community as one of the top offenders, raped, killed and tortured dissedents and their families, paid $25,000 to the families suicide bombers, allowed terrorists safe haven in Iraq including one who was involved in the first WTC bombing and offering OBL a place to remain safe while he was looking for someplace new to plan future attacks against the US, who continuously and defiantly thumbed his nose at the international community by doing everything in his power to prevent the UN inspections to just do their jobs and monitor the destruction of his arsenal of WMD for 12 years while thouands of people died under the atmosphere created from the sanctions placed on his country at the time and other countries took that horrible situation as a great chance to make some illegal money in an ‘Oil for Food’ program…
Yeah, pretty flimy grounds. I guess that is why John Kerry is against that action. Only he voted for it and is now saying that given all of the information available now would still have voted for it.
Erm, is he for it or against it? Oh yeah, that’s right, HE would have gotten our allies to go along with us. He has yet to explain HOW he would have done it given that both France and Germany were actually profiteering off of the climate that the sanctions created, my guess is he has pictures of Chirac in a dress or something…
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2004 08:46 AMHussein’s actions begged remedy. Even the French and Germans agreed he was a destabilizing influence in the Middle East. The decision to put an end to his daily challenges to containment and transparency of his government and military actions, was inevitable.
Whether Bush, Clinton, or Kerry is in office, the day was going to come when the costs of containing Hussein’s potential for disrupting the Middle East again, and oil supply, would be outweighed by the savings of ending his regime.
The problem was when and how Bush decided to invade. It is the opinion of most of his critics, that OBL and al-Queda were a far higher priority deserving of our resources at the time, than Hussein. But, even if invasion at that time could be justified by the belief that he had WMD, invading Iraq could have, and should have, been an overwhelming international effort, minimizing US losses and costs.
If the case was so plain that the U.S. had an overarching interest in removing Hussein, how much more valid should the claim have been for nations surrounding Iraq and within short range missile attack range of Hussein’s military?
We have insured Israel’s capability to single handedly take out Saddam Hussein and his armies, over the decades. Their nuclear submarines courtesy of the U.S., their advanced jet fighters, and tanks, and host of other armaments, could have overwhelmed Iraq if Israel perceived the need in terms of imminent threat.
If the case could rationally be made for the U.S. to invade, the case would be even more overwhelming for European and Middle Eastern nations to invade as they stood in the direct firing line of Hussein’s weapons - Not the U.S. some 4000 miles away.
The fault with the Bush administration was that it refused to build its case against Hussein’s threat and sell it to those who had the greatest need to perceive and end it. And if the Bush administration had little confidence in their ability to make that case to Iraq’s surrounding community, that is very telling indeed. To this day, the Bush administration is still trying to make its case for invading Iraq years after the fact. That is the wrong way of going about such immensely costly operations in the name of Americans who must bear the cost.
A responsible President makes the case to his people before committing his people to the dire costs of war which include occupation and restoration of a viable government in the aftermath. Not after. Let us not forget, there was no imminent threat to the U.S. coming from Iraq. There was no working relationship between Hussein and al-Queda to perpetrate terrorist attacks upon the U.S.
President Bush could not make a truthful, defensible, and rational argument for invading Iraq when he did, either to the European and Middle Eastern community nor to his own population. Not to be deterred by such a trivial matter, he made an unfactual, and indefensible (in the aftermath) argument for invading. He must be held accountable for that error in judgement and must not be given the thumbs up to commit a similar error in judgement again.
That is why Bush must not be reelected on November 2 regarding Iraq. There are a host of other domestic and economic reasons Bush should not be reelected as well, but, those discussions can be found in the other columns here at WatchBlog.
Posted by: David R Remer at August 31, 2004 09:06 AMDavid, there were nations and people in the world (and in the US) that didn’t listen and never would have been convinced to take action on Iraq no matter what he said or how much time he gave it. You know that and I respect your acceptance that something eventually was going to have to be done about Iraq…. you just disagree on the timing of it. Please don’t repeat that Bush “didn’t make the case” for going to war in Iraq. He did and some of us got it. There was at least a 1000 times more justification for going into Iraq rather than attacking Kosovo and Serbia in the 90s, yet the left was silent simply because it was their guy doing it. The left has an indefensible position.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 10:28 AMRhinehold,
Tell it to John McCain. I’m just reacting to the supposedly penetrating argument that was offered.
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 31, 2004 11:13 AMThere is overwhelming evidence that BushCo (evil neocons) came into office with the preconceived notion to take Iraq out. Evidence of this evil plan is in the energy task force records (oil well spoils map shown on 60 minutes), Woodward, Clarke’s and O’Neill’s books. They all tell a remarkably consistent story. 9-11 was just an excuse for puppet Bush. May this low life sea slug rot in hell for all eternity.
Posted by: bayviking at August 31, 2004 02:58 PMAldaron, making the argument that there were some nations and some people who would never be convinced to invade Iraq does not get you anywhere. The fact is there were some nations and people who could have been brought to see the wisdom of undertaking the toppling of Hussein’s regime by the same arguments Bush used to convince the American people. It is hopelessly ingorant to assume that the logic and facts that convinced the American Congress would have been lost on all other nations and peoples of the world. They may speak a different language, but, the rules of logic and rational argument are the same in any modern language.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 03:55 PMBayviking, people like you are exactly what’s wrong in American politics today.
David…. History just doesn’t support that interpretation. We bent over backwards to convince France and Germany (that’s really who we are talking about when we say “allies”) that this should be done. They were never going to go along with this. You are right to say that “there were some nations and people who could have been brought to see the wisdom of undertaking the toppling of Hussein’s regime “… and there was… they are called the Brits, the Italians, the Australian, the South Koreans, the Polish, the Bulgarians (in fact, all of Eastern Europe), the Spanish (before they pussed out), the Portuguese, the Japanese, and at least 20 other nations. Even when people make a joke out of their contribution, it still doesn’t change the fact that they sided with us.
Anyway, this is pointless. It’s the same arguments over and over again, only in different threads. We’ve all made up our minds. I think I’m going on hiatus from this site for a while.
You can catch my continuing meandering thoughts on aldaron.modblog.com
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 06:35 PMAldaron said: “Bayviking, people like you are exactly what’s wrong in American politics today. “
Aldaron, Your presence here will no longer be welcome if you persist in violating the Critique the Message, NOT the Messenger policy of this site. This kind of flame baiting will not be tolerated. Clean it up or find another site to pick your personal fights.
Posted by: Watchblog Manager at August 31, 2004 06:54 PMbayviking said: “May this low life sea slug rot in hell for all eternity.”
While this remark was not directed personally at any messenger here, it is a statement clearly designed to incite hostile responses, bayviking. I ask that you refrain from this kind of flame-baiting and troll-baiting remark in the future.
Posted by: Watchblog Manager at August 31, 2004 06:59 PMThe man who claims to love and admire Jesus went to war without a single valid public reason. Instead there was a hidden agenda, and ample proof of it. I don’t believe in heaven or hell and I doubt if he does either. But I believe in the foundations of Christs teachings. Bush kills innocent people for no reason, using weapons of mass destruction. I have used shocking language, rude by the standards of polite society. Bush has rallied this country around the flag using Machevillian techniques. Yet being polite seems more important than truth, death or destruction.
Posted by: bayviking at September 1, 2004 10:09 AMbayviking said: “Yet being polite seems more important than truth, death or destruction.”
I think you missed the point, bayviking. The truth can be stated without resorting to invitations to others to engage in personal slug fests in a public forum. There is a huge difference between an atheist stating:
1) “There is not a shred of empirical evidence that god exists”
and
2) “The very concept of God is a vaporous machination of weak and feeble minds and your god is nothing more than a big black sucking hole.”
Both of those statement state the truth according to the atheist, but the first is designed to elicit dialogue, the second is designed to be the throwing down of the gauntlet and challenge to a fight.
There are plenty of fight fest political sites out there. WatchBlog is unique in its ardent attempt to elicit intelligent, informed, and personal perspective within a civil environment which does not permit folks to trash each other personally. It is why I love to engage others here in discussion and debate. I hope you can appreciate this unique character of WatchBlog and help support its special character.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2004 05:42 PMGreg, :-D that was a hilarious comment. No, not yet, still two long, long months away.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2004 05:44 PM
