More Lies on Iraq
Bloomberg News has an interesting story on Bush's latest attempt to convince Americans that the war in Iraq is going well and that it should have been included in the war on terrorism. First, Bush tried to explain away the difficulties facing Iraq:
Comparing the Iraqi experience to that of the U.S.? Is he kidding or has he been drinking again. According to what I learned about the American independence, we beat the British and then wrote the Articles of Confederation, which were then replaced by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where in my schooling do I remember an insurgency, a post-independence occupation or a civil war (at least not for another 85 years). The history of U.S. independence is quite different than the current "occupied independent" Iraq. Comparisons are more or less meaningless.
Somehow, Bush has had his head in the sand for the past three years about the relationship between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Before we invaded, Iraq was not on the list of countries harboring terrorists, but now, the country is full of both terrorists and a violent insurgency posing a threat of starting a civil war. While Saddam was a horrible dictator, we haven't invaded many other countries with equally horrible dictators (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea). I don't believe that is the way to deal with dictators. By invading all we did was replace one source of popular discontent with another, our troops. From here, Bush just falls off the deep end by yet again trying too establish a link between 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam Hussein, a link with no basis in fact, even by Bush's own admission.
Saddam was contained and his country inspected by the U.N. weapons inspectors. As we know now, the U.N. mission was successful: there were no weapons of mass destruction or programs to produce them. Any suggestion to the contrary or subtle links between Saddam and 9/11 is disingenuous.
`No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks and false starts,'' Bush said today, comparing the establishment of a free Iraq to the founding of the U.S.
Comparing the Iraqi experience to that of the U.S.? Is he kidding or has he been drinking again. According to what I learned about the American independence, we beat the British and then wrote the Articles of Confederation, which were then replaced by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where in my schooling do I remember an insurgency, a post-independence occupation or a civil war (at least not for another 85 years). The history of U.S. independence is quite different than the current "occupied independent" Iraq. Comparisons are more or less meaningless.
``By helping Iraqis to build a democracy we will gain an ally in the war on terror,'' the president said.
Somehow, Bush has had his head in the sand for the past three years about the relationship between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Before we invaded, Iraq was not on the list of countries harboring terrorists, but now, the country is full of both terrorists and a violent insurgency posing a threat of starting a civil war. While Saddam was a horrible dictator, we haven't invaded many other countries with equally horrible dictators (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea). I don't believe that is the way to deal with dictators. By invading all we did was replace one source of popular discontent with another, our troops. From here, Bush just falls off the deep end by yet again trying too establish a link between 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam Hussein, a link with no basis in fact, even by Bush's own admission.
Asked why he and other members of his administration continue linking the conflict in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes on the U.S., Bush said the attacks in 2001 ``changed my look on foreign policy.''
Most of the world agreed ``that Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush said. ``The 9-11 attacks accentuated that threat, as far as I'm concerned.''
Saddam was contained and his country inspected by the U.N. weapons inspectors. As we know now, the U.N. mission was successful: there were no weapons of mass destruction or programs to produce them. Any suggestion to the contrary or subtle links between Saddam and 9/11 is disingenuous.
posted by Biafra27 at 2:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home