There is one magic bullet that those opposed to the Bush presidency have, but I wonder if they are polishing it. I've long been in cranky opposition to those who repeatedly mutter 'Bush Lied' about WMDs and who give the lack of them to be material to their opposition to Bush regarding Iraq. The whole 'false premises' argument doesn't wash.
You see Cedarford says, what I was hoping somebody intelligent on the Dem side might say if they weren't suffering advanced BDS. But before I reiterate some of his many points, let's get to his best point (that I too had been thinking) and the 'last question', posed as follows.
People who contend that Bush's pre-emptive war is a massive failure, even as they harp on WMDs utterly fail to address the fact that the strategic goal of an Iraq that threatens with WMD has been unequivocably achieved. Saddam Hussein cannot and will not ever threaten anyone with WMD. Mission Accomplished. So those opposed to Bush may absolutely hate that he has accomplished it by military means, now taking the military out of the equation, how will America put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in exactly the same nullified threat position?
Now to Cedarford who has some of the most rational criticisms of Bush I've ever read. I post them here because I think that there are a salient few that must be answered, and also as a guide for folks who would like to assert something negative about the President's actions that would command my attention and respect.
If Bush lied on WMD, he had lots of company, including the intelligence product of some of the now rabid critics - France, Germany, and Russia - plus the intel of Jordan, China, Israel, Turkey, UK, KSA. It was a global intel failure, not just Bush's, but all parties were badly burned, and Iran's exact nuclear status is similarly opaque.
To be fair, there is evidence that Iraqi exile groups manipulated people, and the PNAC crowd and neocon Doug Feith's little cabal worked to hype any theory into fact to "strengthen the PR case".
But for much of the public, war with Iraq was not based on WMD, but on being fed up with Saddam and Iraq defying 17 UN Resolutions, then the deadline. It was felt it was time to get rid of the guy..not transform into a 500 billion nation-building project. And to be honest, 2/3rds of liberals voted for what they protested later - not so much on WMD - but strong, strong pressure by the Israel lobby that war "would be good for Israel".
*********************
Leaving us with the neocon remnants agitating in near hysteria about the urgent need for "action on Iran", otherwise everyone is an "appeaser" and "It's Munich all over again"....but the "take-out", they say, will be easy. A surgical bombing strike. And more tax cuts for the wealthy! No sacrifice! A cake walk!The problem is that the American public is in no mood for another major simultaneous war based on nebulous conjectures and what the remaining neocons, Israel want. The reasons why a major preemptive war against Iran is unlikely go well past the Iraq fiasco:
1. This is where the Israel Lobby actually runs into limits...some of their most reliable supporters have staked their careers on demonizing Bush as unfit to run any war. They can't flip after 3 years of anti-war stridency.
2. We have burned out our reservists and have 70% of our ground combat forces committed to current conflicts.
3. We have deferred spending on replacement equipment destroyed or burned out ever since Bush insisted on losing hundreds of fighter jets from flying donuts above cities no one thought threatened - to today - where several hundred pieces of mobile armor have atritted in the wars. Replacement bill is 95 billion, with 3 years to get back to 2001 strength once spending is authorized.
4. Our intelligence is suspect, our reliance on "exile groups" will never be the same, as trusting, again.
5. We have major fractured alliances that must be rebuilt before any new war.
6. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are worsening.
7. Trust in Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to lead well in another simultaneous war are quite low, even trust in that matter by his "values Republican" base.
8. Relations between Team Bush and members of both parties is abysmal.
9. The public may not want it, but after being told to shop and enjoy their tax cuts and no sacrifice would be asked, "heroes" will keep them perfectly safe - they are hung
up on mixed messages. A. We are in the defining conflict of our lives. B. But don't worry! Buy more stuff at ChinaMart. The "lessons of 9/11" have been largely undone - by telling Americans life for them is normal, no war will trouble them or cost them anything, and by refusing to name the enemy or protect the Bosrders. It will take another attack or another President to get them out of the complacency they were deliberately cocooned in.For the American people, who also have great domestic concerns about major issues like collapse in health care plans, immigration, fiscal recklessness, DC corruption, trade, loss of our place as a cutting edge economic nation.....the next to last thing they want is another open-ended major "elective" war, the last thing being Team Bush leading it.
All that notwitstanding that Bush is over in two years, the larger problems remain. Which leaves us with the very same questions about Crazy A that we had about the Butcher of Baghdad. Is he trying to build WMD, will he thumb his nose at the inspection teams indefinitely, will he defy sanctions, will he not negotiate in good faith?
Recent Comments