Quantcast

Uh oh! What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
...a liberal columinist begins to see the light...

:)

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
SUN-TIMES | February 1, 2005 | MARK BROWN COLUMNIST

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
This feel-good post isn't bringing John Adams home any quicker. We can celebrate when his boots are back on American soil.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
I'm still trying to work out exactly what Bush was right about - the WMD?, the links to Al-qaeda?, the 'clear and present danger'?

That Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard and that Iraq was not a democracy was never in doubt. But those weren't the reasons we invaded. At least not until the original reasons we invaded were shown to be false.

So your liberal columnist is really a republican revisionist in drag.

What is still up for question is whether democracy worth all those lives (numbers still unknown) and will it hold.
 

preppie

Monkey
Aug 30, 2002
379
0
Europe
Was it worth all those lives?
For the US: Yes, because they now have a 'reason' to justify the war.
For Iraq : I really don't know

I'm afraid that Iraq is going to be torn apart by civil wars, once the international forces and attention are gone
and that the worst is yet to come for the Iraqi people.

They need a very very decent Iraqi constitution a.s.a.p.
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
1
North of Oz
Wow....what a stupid article...from a pretty silly journalist...:rolleyes: And considering the recent flurry of news articles regarding the Bushies paying off journalists to give a positive spin to their agendas...I wonder how much this one got?

Fluff is right - we didn't go to "war" with them to save them, to bring enlightenment, democracy, capitalism, or fairness; yet this is supposedly the bs we're supposed to swallow after the fact. I hate how history gets re-written while it's still be enacted. 10 years from now, HighSchoolers will read in their textbooks how the great American empire saved the middle east one country at a time, by bringing democracy to them, and all the little details that paint a much more accurate picture (like the reason we went to war in the first place) will be carefully left out of their textbooks.

I also love how suddenly the US is the bringer of all that is good and wonderful in the world :rolleyes: - if we're so great, why don't we go after Sudan? Or other nations under the control of an evil dictator?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
..interesting... no comment from the leading libs on this issue... except from Hillary Clinton who's doing everything she can to distance herself from appearing to be a liberal...

In a statement posted to her Web site two days before the vote's smashing success, Clinton said: "No matter what you think about the Iraq war, there is one thing we can all agree on for the next days. We have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote."

"They are facing terrorists who have declared war on democracy itself and made voting a life-and-death process," the 2008 presidential contender declared. "We hope this vote succeeds and pray for a safe election day."



Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote
THE WASHINGTON TIMES | 2 Feb | James G. Lakely | LINK

Skeptics of President Bush's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq have been largely silent since Iraqis enthusiastically turned out for Sunday's elections.

Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were among critics of the administration's Iraq policy who had no comment after millions of Iraqis went to the polls in their nation's first free elections in decades.

The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.

Despite widespread predictions of spectacular terrorist attacks on election day in Iraq, fewer than 50 were killed, and the 60 percent turnout for the elections was much higher than many predicted.

Asked whether the Carter Center had a comment on the election, spokeswoman Kay Torrance said: "We wouldn't have any 'yea' or 'nay' statement on Iraq."

Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

Mr. Soros, the Open Society Institute founder who contributed millions of dollars to groups seeking to prevent Mr. Bush's re-election, had denounced as a "sham" the administration's plans for a democratic Iraq.

"To claim that we are invading Iraq for the sake of establishing democracy is a sham, and the rest of the world sees it as such," Mr. Soros said in a Washington speech in March 2003, adding that "the trouble goes much deeper."

"It is not merely that the Bush administration's policies may be wrong, it is that they are wrong," Mr. Soros said in the speech. "Because we are unquestionably the most powerful, [the Bush administration claims] we have earned the right to impose our will on the rest of the world."

Mr. Soros' Web site (www.georgesoros.com) has no reference to the Iraqi elections. Its latest comments are in a Jan. 26 op-ed article on what Mr. Soros calls Mr. Bush's "ambitious" second inaugural address.

"Mr. Soros has not released any statements about the elections in Iraq," said Soros spokesman Michael Vachon. "He has been traveling since Sunday on various foundation projects and hasn't had occasion to comment."

Mr. Vachon said Mr. Soros' "position regarding the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and his criticism thereof have been consistent."

In his Jan. 26 article, published in more than 20 newspapers, including the Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Soros said he agrees with Mr. Bush's goal to spread democracy around the world, "and have devoted the past 15 years and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it," but accused the president of "Orwellian doublespeak."

"Mr. Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty," wrote Mr. Soros, 74, who made his fortune as an international currency trader. "But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate."

There has been no comment since the Iraq elections from Mr. Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker who characterized the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen," and predicted "they will win."

The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) is dated Jan. 10 and concerns "Fahrenheit 9/11" being named best dramatic movie in the People's Choice Awards. An e-mail to Mr. Moore requesting comment was not returned.

On the day before the elections, Mr. Moore featured a link to a column in the New York Times with the headline, "A Sinking Sensation of Parallels between Iraq and Vietnam." On the day after the elections, Mr. Moore linked to a story in the left-wing Nation magazine titled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy."

Moorewatch.com, a site dedicated to countering the filmmaker's political statements, knocked Mr. Moore for "failing to acknowledge [the Iraqi people's] achievement."

"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to cast their votes this past weekend," the anti-Moore Web site said. "It seems Moore only admires the Iraqi people when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush."

Some administration critics, however, saw the Iraqi elections as reason to revise their opinion of Mr. Bush.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has consistently opposed Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, wrote for yesterday's edition that "it's hard to swallow," but "what if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"

The Chicago columnist wrote that he was struck by "television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces."

"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Jr_Bullit said:
if we're so great, why don't we go after Sudan? Or other nations under the control of an evil dictator?
Come on... the UN has to have something worthwile to do every now and then...
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,403
22,487
Sleazattle
Ridemonkey said:
And all we had to do was shatter the lives of 2000 US families to do it! And **** up the economy! Well worth it!
Bah, we haven't actually paid for the war yet so quit yer griping. The government just took out a loan for a few thousand dollars for every man woman and child in the country. Just get a part time side job in ten years to make your share of the payments.

Anyway we needed to plant the seed of democracy in the middle east so there can be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The elections in Iraq were so succesful that the Palestinians had elections months before.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
I love the frother logic. No matter how long Iraq takes to stabilise they are gonna take the credit. Another 5 or 10 years, no problem we'll take the credit they say. I mean Iraq will eventually stabilise, won't it? No matter how many die in the meantime they'll find a way to justify it. The ultimate example of the end justifying the means. How do the frothers say it again....that's right...."to save this country we had to destroy it".