Homepage: http://politicalplace.com
Forums: http://politicalplace.com/phpBB/
Register with the Forums: http://politicalplace.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=register&sid=d51bafbb3b01aa1f0cf542bbb49c1957
The Iraq War: Exploiting 9/11
The American People and the world have been given different reasons for the war with Iraq, as the Bush Administration's unsubstantiated invasion and occupation has become more and more difficult to explain.
Now, it was about “liberation.”
At first we were told about chemical weapons of mass destruction (CWMD). Sure, we thought Saddam Hussein possessed these dreaded weapons. Almost everybody did. We can't fault Bush for believing it too. Hell, we helped Iraq obtain them, to use on the Iranians. But few thought Saddam was actually a threat to America. It was President Bush and his Administration that built him to appear more of a threat than he actually was, by saying things like... "before he (Hussein) becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc.
To date, we’ve had more than 2,000 American troops killed in Iraq. More than 15,000 injured, many losing arms, legs, or their sight! These numbers climb daily.
If the Bush Administration is going to now say that the war in Iraq is about "liberation", wouldn't that be the "flip-flop" of the century? I mean, this is what George Bush said when applying to the American People for the job of Commander in Chief:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.... ....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker."
George W. Bush - Gore/Bush Presidential Debate
October 3, 2000
Sure, then came 9/11. But, what’s Iraq really got to do with that?
I've heard some say, “If it was up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” That may or may not be true. But given the choice, wouldn't it have been better for Americans and Europeans alike, had Osama bin Laden and his entourage been captured instead?
When President Bush first took office in 2001, he was warned about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, by the Clinton Administration. But, Bush had Condoleezza Rice (an expert on the Soviet Union) as his National Security Advisor. Rice had never even heard of al Qaeda before. George Bush was stuck in the 20th century, just look at his people, Cheney... Powell (now gone)... Rice... Rumsfeld... Wolfowitz... (the list goes on). These are GHW Bush's people. Wasn't it within the first year as President that Bush wanted to renege on the Soviet Missile Treaty? While this was going on, al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and not only did Bush have Clinton's warnings about bin Laden, he also had the infamous "CIA memo." It took 9/11 for him to understand just what it was the Clinton Administration was talking about.
Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with at some point, no doubt. The problem is the way the Bush Administration sold it, executed it and timed it. That was all done poorly, at best.
The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to accomplish. The United Nations (UN) isn’t going to invade anybody without solid evidence. Nor should they! That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.
Perhaps had we sent the UN into Iraq searching for mass graves and torture chambers the outcome would have been different.
After finding such real evidence, such as the mass graves and torture chambers, if Russia, France or Germany didn't want to participate, then fine... Go ahead without them and the UN. But, who can really blame them today for not joining us, when it turns out Bush was all wrong with his allegations?
However, if we're going to go ahead without a real coalition, our troops will have to be fully equipped and prepared, and there has to be an exit plan, as well as a plan to win the peace. And now I ask... What was the hurry, that we couldn't equip our troops properly, before invading?
The luxury of a "preemptive" strike is that you are going in on your terms, when you're prepared, when the weather favors you best. Bush rushed in with our troops ill-prepared, with no plan to win the peace, and with no exit plan. Then he had the gall to blame Senator Kerry (during the 2004 Election) for the lack of body armor, because Kerry voted against the $87 billion for Iraq, due to the funds in it going to Halliburton. President Bush fails to mention how he himself threatened to veto that Bill had they revised it in any way, like taking funds from Halliburton. The fact is, President Bush shouldn't have sent our troops into a war with Iraq, without the proper body armor in the first place.
Then to invade during a sandstorm! Conditions our troops weren’t equipped for. Their vehicles and weapons failing them. Some units became lost, some were captured and others were killed. It was a quagmire from the get go!
Why don't our troops deserve the best preparation available to them? Where was Saddam Hussein going? Why couldn't the Bush Administration be a little more patient and prudent? Again, I ask… What was the hurry? We'd waited 12 years. What's with another few months or a year or however long it takes to be well-prepared?
Sure, it’s better to fight them over there than here on our streets. But weren't we already at war with terror in Afghanistan - fighting terrorists "over there", when President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq? Now we’re bogged down in Iraq and it’s hampering our efforts with the war on Terror.
Sure, it’s better to “fight them over there”, but it’s also very important we fight them harder here at home too. We need Federal Agents on all major domestic transportation. We need better nuclear plant security. We need tighter borders. We must invest more in port security. These are some of the ways we can fight terror at home. Forget about wrapping your home in plastic sheathing and duct tape. Can you believe our Government really suggested that, in the case of a chemical attack?
President Bush has failed us. He’d been sidetracked at one of the lowest times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on us September 11, 2001.
al Qaeda now continues to grow and attack the free world. They are sprouting up in new cells around the world, spawning within the borders of their enemies.
And us? We're bogged down in a quagmire called Iraq!
Homepage: http://politicalplace.com
Forums: http://politicalplace.com/phpBB/
Register with the Forums: http://politicalplace.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=register&sid=d51bafbb3b01aa1f0cf542bbb49c1957
.
|
