Other than being hideously misleading, this “part of the world” excuse is also flat out racist. The Al Qaeda guys were Arab Muslims, the Iraqis are Arab Muslims – good enough. There is absolutely nothing else that connects 9/11 and Iraq and it is a great discredit to our country that we have not been able to see through that for all this time simply because some of the people in Iraq are the same ethnicity as the 9/11 attackers.
Of course, as all racists do, we have also maligned the wrong people. Iraq is mainly Shiite and they are not the same religious sect as Al Qaeda. In fact, they are mortal enemies. The Kurds in northern Iraq aren’t even Arabs. And the Sunnis who ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein were secular and hence the direct opponents of Al Qaeda.
2006-08-23
The President Explains How He Misled the Country
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Nadir: All of what you say I afford validity, and your Pat Buchannon view may prove correct. However, your Buchannon view overlooks the rational for the Iraq invasion, which holds up hypothetically in the face of your valid counterpoints. For the Bushies to be "racist" they must seek to suppress people of a certain "race", but they do not seek this. All of their statements and other documentation describes their desire to have all people of all "races" living under self-rule constrained only by individual rights including free speach and religious practices (democracy), and high and growing economic living standards. You can call them racists, but you cannot produce any documentation to confirm this claim. You can only imagine that secretly they are racist.
It's very frustrating that no matter how many times I carefully articulate Bush's justification and rationale for his war in Iraq, he provides counter-points to some incorrect presumed justification and rationale.
Bush did not invade Iraq due to a clear and known linkage between Hussein and Al Qaida, and certainly not due to any clear and known support from Hussein for Al Qaida's 911 attack. Instead, Bush excersized an enforcement option for violations by Hussein of the 1992 cease-fire agreement, in service of the following objectives:
- Guaranteeing against any possible de facto or formal alliance between two forces actively attacking US military targets. Even if we know for absolute certainty that the islamic crusaders and baathists would never ally (which we don't; afterall, the commies and nazis did for a while), progress by one against the US would help and invite hightened efforts by the other.
- Guranteeing against banned WMDs in Iraq, which everybody believed existed, given that one anti-US force had stepped up its own efforts. Fighting against Al Qaida exclsively while ignoring a devoted US enemy in the region that continues daily firings on US military forces enforcing the 1992 cease fire certainly posed a risk. Time may show that the greater risk was confronting and eradicating that risk.
- Planting a democracy in the muslim world, which would lead to prosperity, and thus attack the root of what the Bushies believe is the root of anti-Americanism manifested in 911.
- Guranteeing against state support by the Iraqi Baathist dictatorship for terror against US ally Isreal, which included attaks from islamic crusaders Hamas and Hezbollah.
This is the actual rational and justification for Bush's war in Iraq. Please direct criticisms againt this description. Thank you.
"You can call them racists, but you cannot produce any documentation to confirm this claim. You can only imagine that secretly they are racist."
I cannot produce any documentation where they admit to racism. I can document their actions. I'm sure Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis wouldn't have admitted their racism as Woodrow Wilson and Paul Hue won't either.
Actions speak louder than words.
"Planting a democracy in the muslim world, which would lead to prosperity, and thus attack the root of what the Bushies believe is the root of anti-Americanism manifested in 911."
This rationale wasn't developed until after the WMD argument was proven false.
"Guranteeing against state support by the Iraqi Baathist dictatorship for terror against US ally Isreal, which included attaks from islamic crusaders Hamas and Hezbollah."
This one was never admitted, and I don't know if the administration has ever come out and said it.
Why should we refute what Bush "should be" using as rationale versus what he actually used? If he had better reasons, but didn't use them, that's not my fault or yours.
If you can find better reasons that Bush should have gone to war than those he gave, maybe you should be leading this fight and not him. Certainly he is f*cking it up.
Post a Comment