Iraq, Pre and Post Election

Once again today I hear the rumblings (or is it rantings and ravings) of the "anti-war" crowd... at least the far left of that crowd. Not even the moving embrace between a real Iraqi woman and a real American Marine mom can move them. Apparently the election (the Iraqi election) didn't either. I must, however, tip my hat to the Democrats who are seeing that even if they disagreed with going into the war, there's clearly value there now and we need to see it through to a successful conclusion. Let's face it, there is a history of Democrats, including Bill Clinton, who have espoused the same theory as President Bush regarding the transformative power of freedom and liberty. It's really an American thought (see the Declaration of Independence!), not a Republican thought.

I would, however, at this point like to talk about the original reasons for going to Iraq. The far left meme seems to be that it was all about WMD, and, the argument goes, since there were none, Bush is a liar and the whole thing is illegitimate. First, obviously, the Clinton administration, the British, the French, the Russians, the leaders in the Middle East (who told Tommy Franks before the war that our army would definitely face chemical attack, so we'd better be ready for it), and pretty much everyone else thought that Saddam had WMD. Further, Saddam didn't do anything to disabuse the world of that notion. If Saddam really destroyed all of this weapons, his refusal to allow completely transparent inspections, and to deliver a full and accurate accounting for what was there and when, where, and how the weapons were destroyed is the all-time horrible political calculation.

The lack of WMD making Bush a liar and the war illegitimate is just a rediculous argument.

In addition, he truly was a ruthless dictator who abused his own people in horrible ways. I never understand how the same people who would go to the mat for women's rights, gay rights, and general human rights here and in other places in the world don't seem to think that the atrocities committed by Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'athist regime were reason to remove Saddam from power. It's also curious that, despite the fact that in 1998 congress passed (led by Democrats!) and Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" calling for regime change, which basically made the same arguments Bush made, including WMDs and the abuse of his own citizens, so many Democrats and liberals seem to dismiss those two arguments as fabrications by Bush.

Note: One of the reasons I became a conservative after being a liberal Democrat was the disingenuousness I saw from the Democrats. Initially, it was watching as Clinton claimed successes by Republicans as his own (and I was a Clinton fan and Democrat at the time... I thought it was brilliant politically, but not exactly full of integrity). Then, hearing Al Gore, who was the biggest hawk in the Clinton White House in calling for military action to bring about regime change in Iraq, talking about GWB "betraying" the country by going to war with Iraq... It makes me lose all respect. How can they forget that THEY were calling for regime change for the same reasons as Bush did, only they were doing it three years BEFORE 9/11. Wouldn't it seem that the same people who were behind it in 1998 would be even MORE behind it post 9/11?

As to the relationship between Saddam and terrorists, I think it's been established by now. The far lefties keep wanting to say that the administration was linking Iraq and Al-Queda to 9/11, saying it was another Bush lie. The problem, of course, is that the administration didn't link Iraq to 9/11 (past wondering immediately afterward IF Saddam had a hand in it). But, there are, according to the 9/11 Report and other intelligence, connections between Al-Queda and Iraq. You know... little things like emissaries from Saddam offering sanctuary to Bin Laden. And, clearly Saddam had links to other terrorists and terror groups.

To me, however, you can forget all of that, despite it being true. Here's my question: Zarqawi went to Iraq after Afghanistan fell (odd that he'd feel comfortable doing that if Saddam's regime wasn't open to harboring and assisting terrorists, isn't it?). If we hadn't given him something to do in Iraq, where would he have ended up? It's not like he was destined to be a farmer and we forced him to fight. He was destined to be a terrorist and we forced him to fight in Iraq instead of the East Coast of the United States.

Also, Saddam HAD violated the surrender treaty, and... what was it?... 16 UN resolutions. To me, what President Bush said to the UN was true: When your resolutions become known as completely empty threats, you become irrelevant.

I think this is closest to what was really in President Bush's mind when he decided to go to Iraq. He knew that Al Queda was emboldened by our tepid responses to their other actions. He knew that Bin Laden thought we showed all the resolve we had in Somalia, where "Black Hawk Down" led immediately to our retreat. He knew that Saddam's ability to thumb his nose not only at the UN, but directly at the U.S.A. emboldened not only terrorists, but other outlaw regimes. Why would North Korea or Iran take UN resolutions seriously when it was obvious that you could violate them with no repercussions? Why would they take sanctions seriously, when it was doubtlessly known that Saddam managed to get around them and even make a profit despite them? Slapping Saddam down was a "do NOT screw with US ANYMORE!" moment. And, you know what? It was necessary. We'd become eminently "screw-withable" and the bad guys were taking advantage. Afghanistan was an announcement that we'd get justice for 9/11. Iraq was the announcement that we have officially stopped taking sh_t.

Fortunately, given that we are Americans who believe in freedom, and who have loving hearts (really, amazingly loving hearts!), we don't merely make our announcement and leave a mess. We actually try to make people's lives better, and have a lofty goal of bringing peace and freedom to the world.