They like Bush, and they are not stupid (Superb piece; Must Read)

Most Americans still think Bush did the right thing in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, writes Caroline Overington.

There is going to be a presidential election in the United States in November and George Bush is going to win. President Bush's approval rating is around 60 per cent. That's comparable with Ronald Reagan in 1984, who redefined the term "landslide" when he won 49 of the 50 states.

Naturally, this makes some people crazy. How can Americans vote for a guy who went to war over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist?

First, the US economy is growing at an estimated 5 per cent a year. Interest rates are low. Bush's tax cuts are in people's pockets, and they are spending happily.

Second, Americans like Bush. They see him as patriotic, family-centred and self-disciplined. He is also teetotal, conservative, and Christian. He supports marriage, and opposes abortion and homosexual marriage. There are people who think this makes him a bit old-fashioned but millions of Americans like old-fashioned values.

Most Americans also support Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. They are not stupid. They know that the so-called intelligence about Saddam Hussein was wrong. Despite this, 67 per cent still believe the US did the right thing.

Because I live in New York, I rarely get to hear the voice of this majority. Instead, I get magazines such as Vanity Fair, which last month had a column by the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500. Number of weapons of mass destruction found: 0.

But, as some readers pointed out, there were statistics missing from the list. These include: number of mass graves uncovered in Iraq: around 260, containing as many as 20,000 bodies. Number of people liberated from brutal, murderous leadership: 12 million. And number of times Bush lied about receiving oral sex from a White House intern: 0.

The Iraq war has cost the lives of about 500 American soldiers. Some would have you believe that this makes Iraq a quagmire. But the truth is, if Western nations have come to the point where 500 deaths is an unbearable war-time loss, then we should also say we are no longer prepared to fight wars, because about the same number of soldiers die every year, in peacetime.

Americans are not casual about casualties. Each and every one of the lives lost was precious to them. I remember sitting on a small plane, travelling from North Carolina to New York, when the war was a few weeks old. I was reading USA Today and, as I opened it to study a map of Iraq, one half of the newspaper fell into the lap of my fellow passenger. I turned to apologise, but he said: "No problem. Actually, do you mind if I have a look?"

Together we studied the picture, trying to work out how far the Americans were from seizing power. It was clear from the diagrams that troops were near Saddam's airport, and close to the centre of Baghdad. I turned to my seat mate and said: "I don't think this is going to be a long battle, after all."

It was only then that I noticed, with horror, that he had started to cry. And then I noticed something else: a photograph, wrapped in plastic, pinned to his lapel. It was a picture of his 20-year-old son, a young marine who died in the first days of the war. The man's wife was sitting across the aisle from us. She had a round bowl on her lap, filled with water and some drooping tulips. The movement of the aircraft was making the water slop around. She was trying to wipe her hands, and her tears.

The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

"But I never thought it was about the weapons," my seat mate said. And, although I can't remember his exact words, he also said something like: "We have always stood up for freedom, in our own country, and for other people."

Any student of history knows that this is true. America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper.

Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one.

The price of freedom is high. You might think you would not sacrifice your life for it, but maybe you don't have to. After all, 20-year-old Americans are doing it for you, every day.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360761144.html

As to Viet Nam and your statement, I use the words of a Medal Of Honor recipient and Viet Nam Vet. "We got our nose bloodied but we never lost a major battle, not a single one."

Every One of the Medal Of Honor "Caretakers" has echoed that, They would do it all again some say because someone has to, some say because liberty is worth fighting for.

There is not "insufficient enlistment" there is no draft "waiting to rear its head" get informed, learn about force stucture and mission requirements. To equal Viet Nam we would have to have hundreds of deaths per day, not a couple here or there.

A soldier ANY soldier knows that there may be a price to pay. They know what it means. I knew what could happen so did all my brothers in arms. Yet we kept re-upping. Maybe we were young and dumb. Maybe we could unlike YOU, see the bigger picture. Freedom and liberty have a cost. Some of us will have to pay that price. But you and those who think like you can sit back and let someone else do it for you.

Don't worry, there are enough of the "Someone elses" to do just that. There will always be. With more that 100,000 troops the deaths are .005% less than deaths due to training accidents during non battle years.

Warriors are born not trained. Patriots are born not "imaged" by "handlers" Soldiers are VOLUNTEERS. We did in Afghanistan in months what Russia could not do in a decade.

Also it is better and ask ANY SOLDIER, to fight the killers in Iraq than on the streets in America. They are going to come after us at least they are there not here. At least they face someone with weapons, not innocent American women and children.

Vietnam, Vietnam -- can we finally burn this strawman, please. As you wish. However, Nixon's landlside in 1972 was even bigger than Reagan's landslide in 1984, in that he had an even greater majority of the popular vote (more than 13 million) -- the largest in the history of U.S. presidential elections -- and this was at least in part because of public satisfaction with Vietnamization. All the same, Nixon was driven from office in fewer than 20 months of his second term by a determined rump of McGovernites who managed to weasle-word a two-bit burglary into the equivalent of a Reichstag fire, and under the cover of withdrawing Congressional funding for Vietnamization, turned possible victory in Vietnam into defeat. It is not difficult to imagine that Iraqization, like Vietnamization, will also fail because the Iraqis, like the South Vietnamese, will be inadequately funded as the president is pushed to curb deficit spending.

I agree with lentulusgracchus' comment that "They are desperate for the President to bring back the draft, because they think it would cost him the election. Never mind the equities, the merits, or the policy ramifications. Just beat Bush!" The Democrat party will act and agitate in ways that will be directed to making a failure of Iraqization -- one way or another -- something that may be difficult to stave off if the Iraqi militia acquires the same reputation that (unfairly in my opinion) became attached to the South Vietnamese militia, which had had much longer to develop into a hardened fighting force than the Iraqi militia seems likely to get. We'll see soon enough whether, in the absence of a draft, the economic squeeze that defeated Vietnamization has the same consequence for Iraqization. I think Overington's allusion to the Reagan presidency is not as apt as an allusion to Nixon's presidency would have been. Nixon was a 'wartime president' and Reagan presided over nothing more militarily serious than the Grenada invasion.

Democrat animus against Bush, largely because of the 2000 election result, now occupies that spot in their black hearts that was once reserved for Nixon.

Thanks for the ping JH.

The father of the fallen soldier perhaps understood the bigger picture of peace in the Middle East and elsewhere. Freedom has never came with a cheap price tag, and this effort hasn't either, each of those 500 losses are precious. Each of them, their families and the countless others who have given of themselves, need to be comforted with the idea that their sacrifices are noble and appreciated by a grateful nation.

Through the efforts and losses of countless individuals, perhaps we will finally achieve the ME peace that that last several presidents and many others have tried to negotiate without success. Off the top of my head, I can think of three Nobel Peace Prize winners that have won their prizes for bringing "peace" to the region, all have failed.

It is those that have sacrificed and given their efforts and lives to change Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places so that George Bush's vision of a new Middle East will prevail that deserve the Nobel prizes and our respect.

It has been long known that the Nobel awards are a farce. None of their awardees have ever achieved making peace. Peace is only achieved through the sacrifice of the soldiers, their loved ones, and the efforts of war. Someday, I hope that the Nobel committee recognizes that fact, but I won’t hold my breath.

I hope and pray that President Bush can be re-elected so that the job of bringing peace to that region can be completed, and that the sacrifices of families such as this can be minimized.

"The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. "

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraqis a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger,Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA),Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover
of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI),Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV),Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV),Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA),Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL),Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

(This doesn't mean I've changed my views towards illegal immigration!)LOL

Good article there, John. As far as this:

How can Americans vote for a guy who went to war over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist?

IMHO, a silly comment the Rats keep repeating. Of course they exist, the UN and Clinton confirmed their existence, years before we ever went to war. But, the WMD were only part of the whole picture of what was wrong with leaving Saddam in power.....lest we forget:

Scott Ritter in His Own Words, September 14, 2002

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?
The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.