Ollie Takes a Shot at Bush and Misses

Oliver Willis responds to John Cole on the depsicable Kunich ad. He manages to get pretty much everything wrong.

Let’s look at the facts of what happened here. President Bush stood up in the state of the union, making the claim that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the people of the United States. We were told that Iraq was working in league with terrorists, and instead of devoting more resources to fight against Al Qaeda and finding Osama Bin Laden we should attack Iraq.

Then it turned out that was a fraud, and he knew it at the time. He lied, but decided to commit American troops anyway.

First, Bush never claimed a “clear and present danger”. Those words were never said. This seems to be the new meme since “imminent danger” was shot down over and over and over again. The left seems to have finally understood that no matter how much they try to put those words in his mouth, he never actually even hinted at “imminent danger” and actually argued against it. Now, the argument is “clear and present danger.” Let’s see what Bush actually said:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

Everything he said about Iraq was true. The programs are undeniable. The data was there; the equipment to start the nuclear program was buried and ready to go back into production as soon as the heat was off. To say that chemical weapons were off the table is ludicrous. There is no doubt that they had missiles that violated the UN resolutions — they fired them at us in the first days of the war.

As far as the consequences, this is an easy question. The standard isn’t perfection; the standard is the alternative. Also, more and more news comes out linking Al Queda and Iraq every day. That story is by no means over, and even if there was a 5% chance that it was true and a 95% chance that we were wrong, ignoring the hideous consequences if that 5% was true would be a failure to humanity. Fighting Iraq is fighting Al Queda and terrorism.

Furthermore, once we invaded Iraq and toppled the government the President and his team believed that there would be a seamless shift to a propped up government run by Chalabi and company. They had no plan “B” if that failed (as it did) and put our soldiers in harms way anyhow.

Stupid mistake. Rumsfield in a report to Congress in January 2003:

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declined to speculate upon what might be the militaryrequirements for the United States in post-war Iraq, assuming Saddam Hussein’souster. This reflects the great difficulty in predicting what the political and militarysituation would be in a post-war Iraq, and how long a U.S. military presence wouldbe required before an acceptable and stable Iraqi government could be established.The reaction of the Iraq population is the key element, and will depend upon a variety of factors, such as the nature and extent of war damage and casualties, the demands
of ethnic and religious minorities, and the speed with which a credible governmentcan be established. Though a short-term post-war occupation may be a possibility, it is likely that a continued deployment of substantial military ground force will be necessary for several years. For comparison, in the relatively benign environment and considerably smaller areas of Bosnia and Kosovo, NATO currently maintains adeployment of about 60,000 troops. It is possible, however, that some nations unwilling to participate in military action against Iraq may be willing to contributeto a post-war stabilization force, thus alleviating some of the burden on U.S. forces.

(My emphasis)

Now that we are in Iraq, top contributors to Bush and his party are receiving no-bid contracts or preferential access to Iraq’s various resources. Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s company, is allowed to overcharge us for fuel delivery.

Name one company that is qualified for the contract that isn’t a “top contributor” to Bush and his party. For that matter, name one company other than Haliburton that is qualified for the job.

Now the administration seeks to cover up all those failures, all those lies and missteps by recasting the war on Iraq as one of liberation – never mind that there are other nations with leaderships that make Hussein look like Santa Claus. So why Iraq? The fact of the matter is that the President’s friends and contributors are profiting from the occupation of Iraq, as our soldiers are killed every single day.

Name one nation with leadership that makes Hussain look like Santa Claus. (“America” would be cute but also a lie.) Profit from soldier’s deaths is a non sequitor. Try again.

I don’t want to dislike this President, but the blatant and craven cronyism and callous disregard for the safety of our soldiers and our citizens boils my blood. I cannot understand the lock-step support of the right for a president who makes this sort of policy his stock in trade. This sort of blatant disregard for American values, and our place in the world should be beyond party and political positioning. Its more than just the “next” election. What happens now wil determine where the world will be in the next century. I want America to be the moral leader, the “shining beacon of hope”. Under this president, that isn’t happening, and it won’t happen because they just don’t give a damn.

What American values are being disregared? Freedom? Liberty? Charity?

I agree that what happens now will determine where the world will be in the next century. If we succeed in bringing freedom to Iraq, then the world will become a place of freedom and liberty. If we fail, the world will become embroiled in dictatorships, tyranny and war. Your choice.

We do give a damn. We give a damn because the Iraqi people are people. Nothing makes you more worthy of freedom because you happened to be born in America. Freedom and liberty are human rights, not American rights. How can you look upon the liberation of a people from murderous tyranny as a bad thing?

One Comment

  1. Sean says:

    I think Bush was taking the War on Iraq completely wrong, AXIS OF EVIL??? He makes it sound like he’s leading another damn crusade.
    The fact is he was emplieng things that turned out to be completely untrue. There were no weapons of mass destruction found, this is just an attempt to make realection! Every polatition has to have a feasable crusade to be remembered, and they usually create it using hysteria and misinformation.. does anyone remember Harry anslinger… ?