Posted on 7/22/2003, 1:02:29 PM by veronica
In case you feel on the defensive about criticism of the war against Iraq, here is a suggested response that can be used piecemeal or altogether, as the occasion demands.
It sometimes is not easy to keep one's bearings when virtually all representatives of the nation's oldest, and still largest, political party are crying foul and are echoed by the major news media.
So when the jeering faces loom large and loud, simply remember this:
No one, including President Bush, said Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and, more particularly, an African nuclear deal were the reasons Saddam Hussein had to be removed as the dictator of that country.
Bush never told the American people Saddam had to go because any part of the rest of the world was in imminent danger from anything he might do.
It is the lack of "imminent danger," of course, that Bush's foes now cite as evidence that he felt he had to lie to justify going to war in Iraq in hopes of increasing his political popularity and ensuring his re-election in 2004.
What did the president tell the people?
In his State of the Union address after 9/11 - remember those attacks? - he said it reminded us we were at risk because of an apparent confluence of international terrorism, the existence of terrorist nations and the obvious spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Bush told us the new threat was one we needed to recognize and respond to.
A few months later, he spoke at the United Nations and described the threat, not as imminent, but as "grave and gathering," much as Winston Churchill had warned Great Britain of a "gathering storm" as Nazi Germany was rearming.
The word "gathering" deliberately emphasized the parallelism of the two periods in history.
Then, he told Congress in person in 2003 that "some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," meaning obviously that the action should be taken before that time.
"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions ... would come too late," Bush warned.
He obviously wanted us to act sooner, before the threat was imminent, as Britons eventually wished they had.
It also should be noted that, even though weapons of mass destruction haven't been found yet, even French and German intelligence agencies publicly believed Saddam Hussein had or was capable of having such weapons.
Now ponder what has followed the invasion.
The same political and media voices that are trying to make those weapons the central and damning issue against Bush also argued beforehand that an invasion would make peace between Israel and the Palestinians impossible.
Bush said Iraq had to be subdued first. He was right. A cease-fire in the Mideast includes the most violent Palestinian terrorists.
Saudi Arabia, the incubator of al-Qaida itself and the 9/11 hijackers, is cracking down on its terrorists. Anti-government protesters in Iran have been emboldened. Syria is ending its occupation of Lebanon.
Would any of this be happening had the United States not demonstrated its power, including its staying power, on behalf of peace and freedom in the Middle East?
Only those who hate Bush believe otherwise.
We waited too long to go after Al Quaida, thanks to that cowardly bum, Clinton.
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.