I wrote this short essay 31 months ago and I'm not sure if I sent it out. I've only had my blog for a year. I just happened across it today as I was looking for something else. Not bad. I should have had it published. It was spot-on for the most part. Jim
************
2/8/04
Dear Friends: Hope you don't mind my sharing some thoughts about Bush and Iraq. I occasionally feel compelled to do so, and this morning -- after watching Bush's one-hour interview with Tim Russert -- must be one of those times.
As I watched it, I had the thought that he can only be talking to those who are either dumb, or don't care, or gullibly believe it because the President says it.
1. I don't agree that Saddam was a "madman," yet Bush said it at least five times in his interview this morning. Based on everything I read and heard in the months preceding our invasion, I came to see Saddam as a rational pragmatist who was interested first in remaining in power. Narcisstic yes, but not a fool. He was a man who wanted to be seen in the Arab world as a regional hero who stood up to the Americans. It was Bush and his group who pushed the "madman" idea from the beginning, inferring at every opportunity that he was somehow "behind 9/11," for which there's not a shred of evidence.
2. Bush again said he "had no choice." That is not correct. This was a classic "war of choice" if there ever was one. Bush chose to invade Iraq. He was not forced to. I'm sure historians will agree.
3. "Saddam Hussein was dangerous," Bush said in the interview, “and I'm not going to leave him in power and trust a madman." Yet our Secretary of State (Colin Powell) said a year ago (2/23/03) that Iraq is "contained" and "in his box, and that "we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success." Powell went on to say that Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against the neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." (I can cite the source; this was of course before the Administration told Powell to get on board or else).
4. And once again we heard the biggest lie of all in my opinion -- that our invasion of Iraq has made us "safer." I disagree vehemently. I believe that Bush, by launching a "war of choice" in Iraq, has made us less safe. He has increased the danger. I don't know if Bush himself believes we are safer, or if it's just another logical-sounding rationale for starting the war. Here's why I think the War in Iraq has made us less safe:
A) Our enemy was and is ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, particularly groups like Al Qaeda. Not only was there NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER between Saddam and Islamic Fundamentalism, they hated each other, a well-documented fact. The Islamic extremists hated Saddam for his secular (i.e., not Islamic) regime, and Saddam feared them for there ability to incite the population. After 9/11 the Bush Administration did everything possible to infer a connection. Two days after 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz stated that "Saddam was probably behind this." Two months ago Bush was forced to publicly disavow such a connection, yet the lie continues! Quite incredible! Two weeks ago Cheney said he "continues to believe there’s a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda." I guess his out is that he said "continue to believe" rather than state a fact, but how misleading. And how effective. They say that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. It must be true. A Washington Post survey a month ago found that 53% of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Going after Saddam to get at Al Qaeda is like fixing the sink by working on the stove. Remember, too, there was no "terrorism" in Iraq under Saddam. There's plenty now.
B) We have made it easy for our key allies to claim no responsibility: "Hey Bush, we told you so, but you wouldn't listen. So you pay for it!" And pay for it we will, and we'll be hated for it. At least when we helped rebuild Europe after WW II our efforts were appreciated!
C) Ask yourself: Is Osama bin Laden glad or sorry we invaded Iraq? (You know the answer). First, by focusing on Saddam, we have put less focus on him. Second, by invading Iraq with nothing even close to sufficient cause, we have enabled Osama bin Laden to tell his followers and Muslim extremists around the world: “See? Didn’t I tell you America was our enemy?” Third, we have made it easier for fundamentalist groups to recruit followers. An front page article in today's New York Times discussed the proliferating number of "regional terrorist groups," and how their numbers and followers have grown since 9/11. Four, we have have given the green light to countries like Israel and Russian by enabling them to label their enemies as "terrorists," thereby justifying the brutal human rights violations their "crackdowns" often entail. Five, we have made it so easy for our key allies to claim no responsibility: "Hey Bush, we told you so, but you wouldn't listen. So you pay for it!" And pay for it we will – and be hated for it to boot. At least when we helped rebuild Europe after WW II our efforts were appreciated! And six, we made it have done Islamic fundamentalists a tremendous favor, just as Japan and Germany did Roosevelt a huge favor. By attacking Pearl Harbor, Japan ensured that the United States would be united behind Roosevelt. Had they not attacked us, we may never have gone to war against them, given our isolationist views at the time. And Hitler, by declaring war on the U.S. two days later, also did Roosevelt a huge favor. Had he not, Roosevelt would have encountered powerful opposition from those who would say: “Japan attacked us; Germany didn’t. There’s no reason for us to fight Germany!” In the same sense, we have done our enemy a favor. It is not unreasonable to argue that Bush turned a criminal act by a relatively small group of religious extremists into a world-wide religious war between the West and Islam.
D) And finally, the inspections we're working. Saddam was "contained . . . boxed-in," as Powell put it. Had the inspections continued we would have eventually learned the truth about his WMD. We also would not have wasted the lives of 525 Americans, and spent billions of dollars, strained our army and reserves to the breaking point, stirred up additional hatred in the Muslim world, hurt our relationships with our allies and started a very new (for us) and very dangerous precedent called "pre-emptive war."
If you saw the 60 Minutes segment this evening on Evangelical Christians – of which Bush is one -- you might conclude, as I did, that Bush could well be more dangerous to our country than even Al Qaeda. “"I know exactly where I want to lead the country," he said on the interview. "I have shown the American people I can lead." Please, this election day, make it “anybody but Bush!” And if Ralph Nader enters the race, please don’t vote for him and split the Democratic vote as happened in 2000.
.JPG)
