Revisionist Current News

We went to Iraq because of 16 reasons, one of which has not been seen to be “true” by numerous people because there weren’t BIG weapons of mass destruction, only little ones.

Back then President Bush decided that the US is clearly not safe just because we are far away from those who want to kill us. With that in mind he determined that preemptive war against Saddam Hussein was justified as Saddam had been threatening us in numerous ways over the years and had been known to aid and abet terrorists. (Go on all you want to about WMD but when Bush made his speech everyone knew it was not true that he “knew” there was wmd. Had he known it, he could have just told Hans Blix where the wmd was, Hans could have taken a picture and that would have been that. Instead Bush “knew” in the sense that the rest of the world “knew”. Many, though not all intelligence reports pointed in that direction. That’s often good enough for action.)

Anywho – we went to Iraq.

Today in the Washington Post there is an article entitled:

Intelligence Puts Rationale For War on Shakier Ground

So now you’re probably thinking that new intelligence shows that Saddam was not giving the world the finger pre-war….or that Saddam had nothing to do with using gas on his own people…..or that Saddam had not ordered our planes shot at…..or that Saddam had not lived up to what he agreed to live up to in order to not be attacked after he had attacked Kuwait. Right?

No. This article is about how because al Qaeda seems to still exist, the war in Iraq was not justified. Huh? The war in Iraq did not start in order to fight al Qaeda in Iraq. It started because we were in a position that said, “we’re not putting up with this rogue behavior directed at us any longer”.
Here’s a quote from the article:

Although only a portion of the instability in Iraq is attributed to al-Qaeda and the group had no substantial power base there before the U.S. invasion, Bush again cast the war as a battle against its members, whom his aides have described as key provocateurs there.

Now. The writer is missing the part where Bush says “now”. Saddam is gone. The reason for starting the Iraq war is dead and buried.

At this point we have a responsibility to the Iraqis to help stabilize their country and also to fight al Qaeda there since al Qaeda went there for easy access to Americans and have claimed that Iraq is an important battlefield to them!

The Washington Post seems to want us out of Iraq because al Qaeda is still around and strong. They are acting like the Senators who want us out of Iraq but have no plan for the aftermath. Read the story. It’s called “Pullout Proposal Lacking a Plan B”
It’s truly an incredible show of the idiocy of those advocating this policy. Here’s an example:

The House withdrawal measure, which passed 223 to 201 largely along party lines, calls on the president to develop a new “comprehensive United States strategy for Iraq” that sets out more limited military missions and new “diplomatic initiatives to engage United States allies and others in the region to bring stability to Iraq.”

The House asked for the strategy before Jan. 1, 2008.

“The reality is that they are in the best position to do the detailed planning,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a prominent voice on national security issues who is co-sponsoring the Senate withdrawal proposal with Levin.

The president has rejected any discussion of a redeployment until after Sept. 15, when the top U.S. commander in Iraq is due to report on the success of the 30,000-troop buildup.

Other Democratic lawmakers who have criticized the president’s war planning simply brush aside the need to confront the possibility of a bloody aftermath.

“I am convinced based on everything I have read it won’t be a hell of a lot worse than it is now,” said Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam veteran who has helped lead the Democratic effort to force a withdrawal.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), a widely respected military authority who sponsored last week’s House withdrawal measure, said he was reluctant to engage in “what ifs.”

“You don’t want to plan for failure,” Skelton said.

Five years ago, Skelton presciently warned Bush in a series of letters before the invasion about the need for detailed plans to deal with the chaos Skelton predicted would follow Saddam Hussein’s ouster.

My jaw just drops.

One thought on “Revisionist Current News

  1. Pingback: Me and Scott McClellan « I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err

Comments are closed.