Saddam Hussein Is a Root Cause

In the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the left paid a lot of lip service to the "root causes" of terrorism. They chastised President Bush for going to war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, rather than trying to "understand" what motivated the 9/11 terrorists. If terrorist training camps all over a country do not constitute a root cause for terrorism, then what does?

Now that a war with Iraq is being debated, the root cause argument has suddenly faded into the background. Perhaps that’s because Saddam Hussein is one of the root causes of terrorism and by taking him down, President Bush is doing exactly what the left asked him to.

In his speech to the American Enterprise Institute last week, President Bush outlined his vision for a democratic Iraq, and his hopes that democracy would eventually spread throughout the region. His proposal was met with ridicule by the left, many of whom actually stated that they didn’t think the people of the region were capable of democracy. So much for human rights. But once again, they missed the point. It’s obvious by now that terrorism emanates largely from countries ruled by dictatorships and monarchies. Conversely, the targets of terrorism are usually democratic nations. So if we help eliminate those regimes and replace them with democracies, we will be addressing one of the root causes of terrorism.

Indeed, Bush’s vision for the Arab-Muslim world is a grand one and much more ambitious than anything the left has put forward. What ideas they have promoted, when taking a break from protesting, simply consist of more of the same old, same old. They want the relationship of welfare from First World to Third World countries to continue, while leaving intact the corrupt governments that render their countries dysfunctional. For the Multi-Culti left, the failures of these nations are just part of their "culture" and as such, should be left untouched by what they view as "Western Imperialism." So even if what we’re offering is democracy, they’re against it.

Of course, you won’t hear anyone from the anti-war crowd admitting that President Bush is right, because they’re determined to oppose anything and everything this administration does, even when they agree with it. They insist on being contrary, to the point where rational thought goes out the window.

Once the "root cause" argument became moot, they just moved on to the next one. Now it’s back to "No Blood for Oil," which is in fact a retread from the Gulf War. It didn’t turn out to be true back then and it still isn’t, but that hasn’t stopped the left from dusting it off and trotting it out yet again. Hilariously, there was even murmuring of "No Blood for Oil" when we went to war in Afghanistan, even though the country doesn’t have any oil.

The leftists continues to erode their own credibility, by being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. Their disingenuous catchphrases and lack of support for policies that, theoretically, they should be in favor of, demonstrate that behind the slogans, there is only more hot air.

First off, let me admit i'm a little jealous you have your own column on the Web! Pretty damn cool.

Second, and i'm sorry to say this - you haven't shown me by this article that Saddam is a root cause of terrorism. When did that argument "become moot"?

First off, thank you! I'm trying to forge a career out of this, so we'll see where it goes...

Secondly, the idea I was putting forward is that dictatorial regimes in the region, such as Saddam Hussein's, are ONE of the root causes of terrorism. How many terrorists emanate from democratic nations?

The ideology of Islamofascism is obviously another root cause, but I was trying to stick with the idea of promoting democracy in the region.

The "root cause" argument became "moot" when it became obvious that the left was simply paying lip service to it. They abandoned it themselves (after Afghanistan) and moved on to the next slogan. They don't really care about root causes, injustice, ect. They simply hate Bush and hate America.

Does that make it any clearer?

I've often considered trying to write political commentary, like more than a few at FR, I imagine. More power to you for actually doing it. It's much harder to write something fresh than it is to criticize what someone else has written.

Still, I disagree with your assertion. I don't think the "root cause" argument is "moot" for the left - I think they quite rightly point out that if the Administration was really worried about root causes they would do something about Saudi Arabia. Saddam is a potential cause of terrorism, at least against the U.S.. Democracy is also not an instacure. The growing pains could create as many terrorists as a dictatorship (still plenty of warlording in Afghanistan, for example). And one last point - Afghanistan actually does have oil, though more natural gas. Companies are interested in building an oil pipeline across the country.

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.