No Wonder America Has So Many Enemies (So says a conservative – a paleoconservative, that is)

The Toronto Sun ^ | September 28, 2003 | Eric Margolis

[quidnunc]

President Bill Clinton was impeached by a Republican-controlled Congress for lying about sex. President George W. Bush and aides lied the United States into a stupid, unnecessary colonial war that has so far killed more than 305 Americans and seriously wounded more than 1,400. It has also cost many thousands of Iraqi dead, and $1 billion US weekly.

Lying about sex is an impeachable offence; lying the nation into war apparently is not.

I was no Clinton fan, but give me his iffy morals any day over Bush's Mussolini-like strutting. Sen. Edward Kennedy is absolutely correct when he calls Bush's Iraq war a "fraud" concocted to win the next elections.

A fraud and an epic blunder.

Last week, Bush received a glacial and scornful reception at the United Nations that symbolized the world's contempt and disgust for his administration. Not since Nikita Khrushchev pounded his shoe on the speaker's rostrum has a major leader so embarrassed himself and his nation before the world body.

In his UN speech, Bush again claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and "ties" to terrorism. Days later, U.S. intelligence teams that scoured Iraq for four months reported no traces of weapons or terrorism links — the pretext used by Bush and his neo-conservative handlers for unprovoked war against Saddam Hussein.

The White House was left choking on its own grotesque lies.

Incredibly, VP Dick Cheney, a prime architect of the Iraq war, actually claimed recently that Iraq still had mobile germ labs, though U.S. and British inspectors debunked this claim last June. The "special" intelligence network created by neo-conservatives is still apparently feeding disinformation to America's leadership.

This latest humiliation came only days after Bush finally admitted Iraq was not, as most Americans were misled into believing, behind the 9/11 attacks.

No wonder world leaders gave Bush the cold shoulder, and even usually timid UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned against "dangerous acts of unilateralism" — a pointed reference to the bellicose Bush administration.

Unfortunately, many Americans still do not understand how gravely the Bush White House has damaged and sullied their nation's once noble reputation.

Dangerous aggressor

Recent polls show that even among traditional friends abroad, America is no longer regarded as a champion of freedom, democracy and human rights, but increasingly as a dangerous aggressor bent on imperial domination and exploitation.

America's most precious and proudest asset, its moral reputation, has been gravely damaged by the Bush White House. The only positive note: rising anti-Americanism is largely associated in the eyes of non-Americans with the persona of George Bush, a man who projects almost all the negative stereotypes foreigners hold of Americans.

-snip-

[Sam Cree]

I always think an honest politician, with integrity, would be unbeatable. I'm probably wrong.

[Sam Cree]

"Initially when his audience was primarily the American public, Bush stressed the need for regime change in Iraq to begin to change the terror culture of the Mid East."

Makes sense. I feel a little better.

I went and read the state of the union speech. He did mention Iraq as part of the terror problem, although he could have been more specific.

Yeah, it's clear that changing an enemy into a friend in the Middle East would be a major coup in the war against terror. Too bad he hasn't been able to keep the world and us focused on that, if in fact it's what he is doing.

[zacyak]

As usual, Margolis' rhetoric is overblown when critisizing this administration which he so obviously hates, but even I don't believe that the imminent threat of Saddam's alledged WMD was the real reason for this war. As the costs continue to mount over there, I expect many other Americans to start questioning the the real motivation for it, as well as the wisdom of undertaking it without the explicit support of more of our allies.

[quidnunc]

clonib wrote: Before I'm booted off the board (again), may I gently remind those of you who demonstrate some semblance of intellectual honesty that pointing to the end to justify the means is not a terribly traditional or conservative notion? I'd have rather that GW sold this venture in on its real merits.

He did when making his case to the American people.

It was only after he went to the U.N. that he had to shift to the WMD argument because so many other members of the Security council had a stake in keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Evidently some Americans either weren't paying sufficient attention at the time or have convienently forgotten so as to have an excuse to do harm to Dubya politically.

[optimistically_conservative]

It absolutely amazes me that a conservative would measure moral leadership, or a loss of moral reputation, on popularity. My experience has always been that popularity follows immoral or lax leadership - whereas respect in the face of unpopularity often follows moral and disciplined leadership.

I find the unease eminating from pan-Arab dictators, Islamic theocrats, communist authoritarians and socialist panderers strangely reassuring.

If these are our overseas enemies, and arguably our domestic ones as well, made more uncomfortable by Bush - I'd hardly consider that a loss of moral reputation. But then I can remember how unpopular Reagan was internationally when he confronted despots.

[optimistically_conservative]

The Bush administration has been honest and consistent with it's reasons for going to war. The imminence of the WMD threat has increasingly been misreported and Democrats have increasingly portrayed the administration as lying to the American people about it in an attempt to revise our historical perception, so ....

The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming. - President Bush, September 2002.⁷

"I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons anytime in the immediate future." - Gov. Howard Dean, September 2002.^{8, 9}

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - President Bush, October 2002.¹⁰

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." - President George Bush, State of the Union, January 2003¹¹

"The reason I would have voted against the resolution is they gave the president authority to attack Iraq without making the case that there's an imminent threat," - Gov. Howard Dean, February 2003¹²

"The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." - President Bush, February 2003¹³

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." - President Bush, March 2003¹⁴

"One, unilateral action is not appropriate unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. Two, the imminent threat would consist of Iraq's having a nuclear program or developing one or being found, credibly, giving weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, to terrorists. Three, Saddam needs to be disarmed, period, whether he's an imminent threat or not. Four, the responsibility for disarming Iraq belongs right now to the UN because Saddam is an imminent threat to the region.... Unilateral action is not appropriate." - Gov. Howard Dean, March 2003.¹⁵

"Over the past year, the Bush Administration has made specific and unequivocal statements about the imminent threat posed by Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction." - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich, June 2003 ¹⁶

Senators John Kerry and Bob Graham were asked at the September 2003 Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox News Channel debate if the President intentionally misled the country/American people:

"Well, I don't know the answer to that question until we have the full measure of the investigation into the intelligence and the intelligence failure here." - Senator John Kerry, September 2003¹⁷

"Yes." - Senator Bob Graham, September 2003¹⁸

"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," - Senator Ted Kennedy, September 2003.^{19, 20}

[WillowyDame]

"However, I agree with Margolis that Bush was not straightforward about his reasons for leading us into Iraq.
"
ehh bush believed that saddam has wmd. that is not lying. it might not be true but that is what he BELIEVED. how is that lying?

but anyway, we are in the war now..mistakes as been made as in any war. we have to move on to solutions.

canada needs to stick to pot smoking and stop opening their foul mouth! they got their own major problems to deal with.

as for pat buch, i used to like his candour (rare to see a white male on tv saying what he really thinks in this PC times) but his constant attack on bush leaves a bad taste on my tongue. so f him!

[Tarl]

The media and Libs at large have used the "imminent" mantra ad nauseum. Lately, Dems parade out lamenting (lying) that there has been no proof that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Bush never said they were imminent, he warned we mustn't wait till the threat is imminent. The following is quoted from GWB State of the Union:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

SOTU quoted to dispute Democrat’s mantra that the president claimed Iraq's danger was imminent. They lie and mislead everytime they utter this.

If we know the President based his cause for the war on not only ours but many other co-operating intelligence agencies, then one suspicion remains...everyone thought the Dems were daring to say there were no WMD and therefore we were "lied" to...but is it daring if insider knowledge gave them assurance none would be found?

It flies against all logic that their existence is doubted. Saddam obviously destroyed the assembled WMD or moved its more telling components during the war build-up to nearby borders (Lebanon/Iran/Syria). The Dems got illicit knowledge of it either from Iraqi source(s) or an intelligence leak from Senator Graham via one of his sources or some other "intelligence defector" who has destroyed his evidence.

If their leader had the assembled WMD destroyed in one of the preceding years, how does this incriminate the President? Does everyone suspect we had Muslim intelligence operatives on the ground in Iraq? Why didn’t he reveal he had destroyed the WMD and have the sanctions lifted and thus avoid the war? The sanctions hurt his people but must not have crimped his lifestyle or his cronies.

The main reason IMO is the image he cherished, he loved being the symbol of defiance to Yankee Imperialism…admitting his destruction of WMD might be seen as weakness and invite assassination attempts or coups.

His mistake was that Bush was no Clinton, our resolve was no bluff. Somehow the Demrats were assured the WMD were non-existent and thus they made their “bold” claim. We’d like to think of the Rats as stupid, but the worse enemy is one that is deemed weak and harmless.

[xJones]

It was only after he went to the U.N. that he had to shift to the WMD argument because so many other members of the Security council had a stake in keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

France had a HUGE oil field contract with Chirac's old pal, Saddam. Something like the equivalent of 50 billion dollars, and descriptions of Chirac's meetings with Bush and Blair were passed right away to the French embassy in Baghdad, as I recall. German companies had done very profitable business with Saddam, and Russia was in there also.

So Bush was facing at least 3 hungry sharks on the Security Council, whose countries have real budget problems, and they needed Saddam's largesse. What followed was cynically predictable.

[zacyak]

My pet theory has always been that Bush recognised that our relationship with the Saudis was deteriorating to the point where it became inevitable that our military bases would be removed from there, so that deposing Saddam and setting up Iraq as a base of operations seemed like a good choice. That, and the fact that a democratic Iraq would be a very favorable development to our interests in the region. Whether things actually work out this way remains to be seen; if Bush doesn't get re-elected, I expect a democratic administration to leave Iraq prematurely, whereupon things could seriously degenerate over there. I'm also not sure how much patience the American public has with absorbing the cost associated with the occupation is going to be.

[tbpiper]

So, what's for supper?

Well it's not going to be snails or diseased duck liver.

[xJones]

I beg your pardon, I should have named China as the third hungry shark on the U.N. Security Council in #30, and Germany, of course, is not on the Council..

[Sam Cree]

I don't think he was exactly lying, just giving more press time to the possession of wmd's issue, when the primary issue was probably really the war against terror. Anyway, that's why I used the word "straightforward" instead of the word "lying."

Now that wmd's haven't been found there's an opening to attack GW's credibility that wouldn't be there if he hadn't made finding them a main focus.

Actually, I believe the WMD threat continues to be credible. Even though he managed not to have any around when we went in, I am sure that Saddam's intentions were to possess them. Same goes for Al Qaeda. So, clearly both Saddam and Al Qaeda pose a threat to civilization and need removing. GW sees this, IMO, even if the Left does not.

Why most of the world is so outraged at the removal of an evil, oppressive and dangerous monster is beyond me.

[Sam Cree]

Have you been a supporter of the Iraq war?

[Sam Cree]

"I'm also not sure how much patience the American public has with absorbing the cost associated with the occupation is going to be."

You are probably right. But if the effort fails, and Iraq reverts to a Baathist dictatorship, or becomes an Islamist theocracy, the cost will probably be lots higher.

[Recourse]

Jimmy Carter was honest. Not too good a leader, though.

[Sam Cree]

I sort of figured, that with the war on terror, doing nothing was not an option for us. So I was therefore supportive of the war, since I saw it as a step in the war on terror, even if I wasn't sure it was the perfect place to get started. After Afghanistan, I mean.

There isn't any doubt that we've done the world a great service by removing Saddam, but it was clear even before we went in, that if our victory there couldn't be total, it would have been better to leave it alone.

Now the Left, which includes the press and the Democrats, is doing their best to make the thing a failure, and are doing such merely in the pursuit of political power, if I am reading it right.

To me, that is playing for small stakes when much larger stakes are at risk, such as the future of Western civilization.

[Sam Cree]

An honest socialist, I guess. I suppose that's better than a dishonest one, like the Clinton's.