So I started to leave a comment in response to this post by my good friend CroMike. I had so much to say that I thought it best served by posting it on my own blog:
Now, I cannot creep into the minds of Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney and divinate their intentions when they first put Iraq in the crosshairs. I do not attempt to justify them. But I hate seeing good minds bowled over by the onslaught of misinformation. Allow me to give a bit of perspective. Bush and Powell repeatedly explained--but it was never hyped--that they were going into Iraq to "Change the Face of the Middle East" and ultimately to influence the culture of ignorance, poverty and fear that is constantly breeding terrorism and destabilizing the region (read: "keeping oil prices fluctuant"). Then came those darn WMDs.
That wasn't why we went into Iraq. It was one small piece of the intelligence pie that justified war; Bush and/or his advisors erroneously thought that “Weapons of Mass Destruction” would resonate better with Joe Shmoe than "Democratizing the Region", so Weapons of Mass Destruction got tons of media hype. If you like, I could send you dozens of quotes from foreign governments (Russia, UK, Germany, France, Italy...), President Clinton, Hillary, and the intelligence community stating their belief that Saddam had WMDs. So if he never did, he fooled not just Bush, but the entire planet (including his own high-level staff). Congress supported the war, it had a buildup of over 8 months, it was popular. If any legislator voted his or her approval disingenuously, then he should answer before God and the people whom they serve for so callously discharging the lives and limbs of our servicemen.
I am a classic Liberal. I believe in the Constitution and the principles espoused by the Founders. They were, for the most part, isolationists. So I agree with you that America should not have a preemptive, aggressive or manipulative foreign policy. But in this day of rapid transit, porous borders, economic entanglement and geographically incongruous natural resources, an isolationist policy would require too many actions that people currently oppose (e.g. drilling for oil in the States, building refineries, drastically stronger border defense, Israel-style air security, slightly higher prices on some foreign goods--all of these things I support, by the way). The point is, America had to make a choice after 9/11 (and Bush is culpable for not presenting it to the American people). The choice was, Do we continue to pursue a globalist, entangled future for America with dependence on other nations and regions, or Do we seek independence and relative isolation? The former will require a larger military presence to police the world with its inherent cost, the latter will require a long term resolve and probably carry with it a brief economic recession until the markets stabilize from the drastic changes. Which will it be?
Unfortunately Americans want the best of both options without any of the costs. And to maintain this fantasy many have chosen to ignore what they understood quite well a few years ago: there are people who believe America is the Great Satan and want to shoot you in the head. There are also people who, for the sake of security, want to build a "Brave New World" which requires reeducation and a distortion or erasure of history. There are people both home and abroad who despise fundamental American ideals. Without a healthy vigilance to these trends and influences, you will be blown off course unawares.
Hopefully that gives a bit of perspective. Too many people think with their hearts and feel with their brains. I think it stems from pride, a desire to nonconform.
Let me assure you though, that of the 3 current presidential candidates, not one will pull us out of Iraq. All three are globalists, all three are Senators, career politicians and smarmy. They are very different shades of the same color. It doesn’t matter though; Americans have proven just how short their memories really are.
Now, I cannot creep into the minds of Bush, Rumsfeld or Cheney and divinate their intentions when they first put Iraq in the crosshairs. I do not attempt to justify them. But I hate seeing good minds bowled over by the onslaught of misinformation. Allow me to give a bit of perspective. Bush and Powell repeatedly explained--but it was never hyped--that they were going into Iraq to "Change the Face of the Middle East" and ultimately to influence the culture of ignorance, poverty and fear that is constantly breeding terrorism and destabilizing the region (read: "keeping oil prices fluctuant"). Then came those darn WMDs.
That wasn't why we went into Iraq. It was one small piece of the intelligence pie that justified war; Bush and/or his advisors erroneously thought that “Weapons of Mass Destruction” would resonate better with Joe Shmoe than "Democratizing the Region", so Weapons of Mass Destruction got tons of media hype. If you like, I could send you dozens of quotes from foreign governments (Russia, UK, Germany, France, Italy...), President Clinton, Hillary, and the intelligence community stating their belief that Saddam had WMDs. So if he never did, he fooled not just Bush, but the entire planet (including his own high-level staff). Congress supported the war, it had a buildup of over 8 months, it was popular. If any legislator voted his or her approval disingenuously, then he should answer before God and the people whom they serve for so callously discharging the lives and limbs of our servicemen.
I am a classic Liberal. I believe in the Constitution and the principles espoused by the Founders. They were, for the most part, isolationists. So I agree with you that America should not have a preemptive, aggressive or manipulative foreign policy. But in this day of rapid transit, porous borders, economic entanglement and geographically incongruous natural resources, an isolationist policy would require too many actions that people currently oppose (e.g. drilling for oil in the States, building refineries, drastically stronger border defense, Israel-style air security, slightly higher prices on some foreign goods--all of these things I support, by the way). The point is, America had to make a choice after 9/11 (and Bush is culpable for not presenting it to the American people). The choice was, Do we continue to pursue a globalist, entangled future for America with dependence on other nations and regions, or Do we seek independence and relative isolation? The former will require a larger military presence to police the world with its inherent cost, the latter will require a long term resolve and probably carry with it a brief economic recession until the markets stabilize from the drastic changes. Which will it be?
Unfortunately Americans want the best of both options without any of the costs. And to maintain this fantasy many have chosen to ignore what they understood quite well a few years ago: there are people who believe America is the Great Satan and want to shoot you in the head. There are also people who, for the sake of security, want to build a "Brave New World" which requires reeducation and a distortion or erasure of history. There are people both home and abroad who despise fundamental American ideals. Without a healthy vigilance to these trends and influences, you will be blown off course unawares.
Hopefully that gives a bit of perspective. Too many people think with their hearts and feel with their brains. I think it stems from pride, a desire to nonconform.
Let me assure you though, that of the 3 current presidential candidates, not one will pull us out of Iraq. All three are globalists, all three are Senators, career politicians and smarmy. They are very different shades of the same color. It doesn’t matter though; Americans have proven just how short their memories really are.
