The Left keeps obsessing over Iraq
July 25, 2003 ~ 3:42 p.m.
I haven�t been finding it easy to write lately. I�m in a state of writer�s exhaustion. But I�ve got to weigh in on the Iraq-missing WMDs issue. I�m not going to pretend that this is an exhaustively researched entry; it is just my pure, raw opinion.
The liberals are still bleating about Iraq and it�s grating my nerves. It seems it�s all they�ll talk about for the next five or ten years. Deficit? What deficit? Let�s talk Iraq and how glad we are that Uday and Qusay are dead and the Iraqis are liberated, yet give no credit to Bush and Co., or indeed anyone even slightly suspected of being a neo-con sympathizer, for making all this possible. One suspects, quite understandably, that if Clinton had launched this war, nary a peep from the Left would have emanated. (Though all Clinton really had to do was send Janet Reno in with the tanks. Hey, worked beautifully in Waco.) One of their men wasn�t in power, so to hell with this war. We were lied to, damnit! Maybe Bush could just say, �I did not make war with that dictator, Saddam.� Again, worked miracles for Clinton and all the cognoscenti in the press and networks, the pulse of American opinion, gave him a free pass.
Sadly, the Left has become so obsessed in their plight to damage the reputations and careers of anyone who had any government role that they have single-handedly killed a member of the British Government. Then they had the halting, awesome nerve to call him a liar after his death. Good ol� BBC�annoying British governments for decades, but this is probably the first time in history they�ve ever attacked a Labour government so brutally.
We are asked mercilessly, �where are the weapons?� Well, perhaps the anti-war liberals can tell us. After all, everything we heard from them before the war started was that American blood was going to run like a river in the streets, that Maddas would launch everything in his arsenal�and to believe that, you had to genuinely believe he had an arsenal�at American and British troops. We couldn�t go to war because we�d launch World War III. Now that it�s been revealed that dossiers and intelligence reports were juiced up to convince a morally vacuous population that war against Saddam would be quick and much better for the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian peace, and suddenly the tables have turned. Well, say the pious in the anti-war camp. Where are these weapons? Hmmmm?
Where�s Osama, and where�s Maddas? Sharing a cave together. If our intelligence was so horribly bad, how did we recently track down Uday and Qusay and send those two subhuman masses of slime to their demises? Maddas will be caught as well. Everyone wants to focus on what a mess Iraq is and how Afghanistan is not much better. It is hard to fill a power vacuum left by the exit, stage right, of a tyrant and subsequently coalesce groups of people that are fighting amongst themselves. Do they know the American/Western ideal of democracy, and who said it would be easy introducing and institutionalizing the concept in post-Maddas Iraq? We knew what trouble might lie ahead.
But still, the rush to war just cannot be forgiven. I quote Mona Charen:
�Any nation that marched into that torture chamber of a country and freed it deserves the world�s gratitude. Instead, we have carping from all sides. Antiquities were stolen from the museum, water and power supplies took more than a couple of weeks to stabilize, and we haven�t yet laid hands on the well-hidden weapons of mass destruction. The weapons will be found. The rest is nonsense.�
I wonder, is Dean going to mutter, �well, I guess it�s a good thing that Uday and Qusay are dead,� just as he mused the same about Maddas getting forcibly knocked out of power? As for Kucinich and his brigade of loony Left supporters, I expect guest-of-honor Jesse Jackson to lead the crowd in mourning that yet more victims of American imperialism lay dead.
I think we need an exit strategy. U.S. Marines have done their job and now it�s time to bring the boys back. The U.N. wanted a role in post-war Iraq. Let them have at it. They, not the U.S., can be the world�s policemen. This is not new opinion by yours truly. Back one war-heady day of April, I bucked my fellow neo-cons on the issue of keeping the U.N. out of Iraq. Let them resume their role as peacekeepers. And if the point is to snub the French, then the point is moot as the French company Total won a huge oil contract from Iraq�s available oil.
Don�t be fooled, however, by talk that Iraq was a secular Arab state. Saddam Hussein was a massive bullying presence that destabilized the entire area. I know we�ve got our work cut out in that part of the globe, but with Saddam out of the picture entirely, who can argue that great progress has already been made? (And, rumblelizard, are you serious in suggesting that Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan, is unworthy of cozy relations with the U.S.? He�s rooting out fanatical Islam in his country. Are you crying for the Taliban wannabes that Karimov is cracking down on?)
And, for those of you who cried �Not in My Name� and �No War, No Blood for Oil,� and �America is the Real Terrorist State,� then I say, leave the celebrating over the deaths of Uday and Qusay to those who got it right in the first place.
Another party that the Left wants to crash. How friggin� surprising is that?
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!