Posted on 07/22/2003 4:36:19 PM PDT by presidio9
Edited on 07/22/2003 4:40:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Is President Bush the Iraq war's "useful idiot"? The phrase was coined by Vladimir Lenin to refer to Communist sympathizers who believed what they were told - and what they were told was mostly lies. It could be somewhat the same with Bush. He may well be the last person to believe the Iraq war was waged virtually in self-defense. He believes that dictator Saddam Hussein was on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, and was linked to Osama Bin Laden.
I'm sure your father makes you proud.
However, I think that the policy of pre-emption is in direct conflict with the thoughts of our founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. George Washington spoke to the issue of foreign entanglements in his Farewell Address, wiser words were never spoken.
You mean the same troops some Freepers have stooped to call "whiners" and "cry babies" in recent threads because they were told the "road home lies in Baghdad" by Rumsfeld and Bush only to see their stays extended indefinetly? As for the rest of your post- it is nonsense.
It's obvious you just read and retain what you want in order to support your bias.
The North Korea dodge is stupid and transparent. I'm not going to debate someone channeling Ann Lewis.
The founders, including George Washington, made pronouncements based on what they knew at the time. They aren't infallible, you know.
The founding fathers did see the need to make the primary responsibility of the POTUS to protect the country from all enemies both foreign and domestic and provide a defense for these threats.
We no longer live in a world where are shores is where we confront an enemy. When a President,(no matter who it is) is presented with evidence that a declared enemy is violating all the agreements that allowed him to remain in power after we defeated this enemy, and who is also attempting to obtain the weapons that could kill millions of our people. I believe that president has a responsibility to take any threat like this very seriously and act before it's too late. No one can make a serious defense of Saddam and this President did the right thing in leading this country to war and removing Saddam Hussein.
Our troops who carried out the CIC's orders did a tremendous job and should be treated as the American Heroes they are. We must face the fact that we live in a world that at any moment can be destroyed by the weapons currently held by the U.S., China and Russia, These weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations must be prevented and if it means pre-emptive strikes around the globe until that threat is neutralized, I'M all for it and to hell with what our founding fathers said 227 years ago. The Constitution is not a suicide past
Contrast this, with the religious zealotry of bin Laden and his goons who believe that the destruction of America is God's will and they are his divine instruments. His minions regard death as a blessing and a pathway to glory. It is these who form the real and present danger to this country. A communist atheist or a secular goon like Saddam can be kept in his box by the threat of extermination for their heaven is here on earth. The Jihadists, on the other hand, not only are unafraid of death, but desire it. A completely different kettle of fish.
Now in waiting in Iraq, and unleashed by our intervention, is the previously silent Shi'ite majority, amongst whom will be a significant number of fundamentalists and jihadists. They want an Islamic theocracy. They were suppressed by Saddam-more evidence that he was no friend of Islam-but they're not suppressed any more. I would say that these people are a bigger threat to America than Saddam ever was. We have high hopes of of bringing some type of western-style democracy to Iraq. It's an optimistic hope in my opinion but I'll wait and see. We can't babysit the country forever, and I believe the Shi'ites are simply biding their time for when we leave. That's when the rubber will meet the road and we'll see where Iraq is truly going.
The Declaration of Independence has NOTHING, whatsoever, to do with how this nation will run its foreign policy.
Thomas Jefferson wanted to embroil the USA in the French Revolution.
You don't know what the FFs would or would NOT approve of today, faced with what our nation has and does face. You can't extrapolate that from their writings and your spiritualist is telling you what you want to hear. Or, are YOU using a crystal ball/scrying mirror/automatic writing/tarot cards/Ouija board to contact the long dead ? :-)
I bet your parents are just SO " proud " that their child has such an abject lack of knowledge and puts it on display daily. :-)
Tenet is Bush's WEAKEST LINK.
And, IF you really were my son, you'de write better, know far more, and have MUCH better manners.
The stated threat was that Saddam could not be trusted to refrain from passing along WMD's to terrorist that promised to use them against us or our allies makes him a real threat and one that can't be ignored or placed in a box.
IMHO GHWB did the right thing by honoring the U.N. resolution to Liberate Kuwait and not going on to Baghdad in 1991. But I believe it was Clinton's responsibility to enforce the agreement that allowed Saddam to remain in power. This problem was kicked down the road by Clinton and handed off to the ever ineffective U.N. in enforcing it's demands.
I believe this problem in Iraq had to be dealt with at some time and considering the climate after 9/11. I think it was perfect timing to project our power in the region and let those nations who are currently harboring or financing these terrorist bastards that they can be next.
How could you POSSIBLY know that? Claire Voyant???
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.