If Iraq War was such a good idea, why didn't Bush run on it?

[BigBigBear]

As revelations emerge that the US was in NO WAY threatened by Saddam Hussein (in fact, neither were his neighbors), that there were no WMD, no active connections to terrorist groups, and Iraq war supporters are left saying, simply, "He was a bad guy, and it's a good thing we went in and got him..."

---ok-----

then why didn't Bush, who it is now revealed had been planning this since the inaguration, and likely much earlier, actually make his case during the campaign? To wit:

"If I'm elected, I'll wage a war of liberation on behalf of the Iraqi people, remove Saddam once and for all, and occupy the Iraqi nation with 150,000 troops (at the cost of $5 billion/month) to ensure that a Western-friendly, stable, tolerant government is put in place. Our loss of life will be low, but our cause is making the US and the world demonstrably safer."

If this was such a good idea, why did he promise a "humble" foreign policy, and berate the Clinton administration for over-stretching the US military with 'nation-building'?

Why weren't the voters given a chance to evaluate this policy before casting their votes - instead of being dragged into it as a response to 9/11?

We all know the answer, don't we?

Candidate strategists - Clark talks about 'bait and switch'. To me, and many to the people you're trying to reach, THIS is the REAL bait and switch. Bush treated this as HIS mission, with HIS Army. He wasn't interested in what the public thought. (Of course, we're the ones paying for it, and attending the military funerals.)

Iraq would have happened regardless of 9/11.

That should be the substance of the Iraq debate in the '04 election.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Read Arendt's lomg but spot on thread GD, all about what you are saying

with explanations of why.

[BigBigBear]

7. Thanks

I just read it. The parallels to history are remarkable, important and instructive.

One thing I would take issue with: The line about "I don't care about the swing voter....If they haven't made their mind up after all this time..."

Dead wrong, IMV. This speaks of intellectual elitism - the idea that we can quote Churchill and search for parallels with Cromwell and James I, and being condescending toward anyone in America who does not likewise share our interest or inclination to search for historical precedents for despising this vile little man and his political oeuvre degrades our political system, and tarnishes the rightness of our cause.

We have a duty, as members of a vigorous opposition to this administration, to share what we know; to persuade, to convince, to properly cast the hypocrisy of this faux leader. We MUST speak to the whole nation - be they conservative or moderate, educated or uneducated, enlightened or morons. We can't convince everyone, but we must certainly try.

As soon as we say, 'Unconvinced of the venality of this president? To hell with you, then.', we degrade the process and betray that which we hope to redeem from these thugs. We do not just seek to remove this man - we seek to replace his regime with a better vision, more inclusive, more open, more respectful of the nation. The swing voters will be the ones who help Bush's replacement succeed. We need them, if we wish to govern.

I think's planning for post-Bush America. ;)

But arendt is a great writer. Thanks for the reference.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

2. The 60 Minutes spot last night

really brought that question up nicely. They talked with O'Neill about the Iraqi planning pre-9/11, and then they cut to a sound byte of Shrub talking about how he didn't want to get into nation-building.

So I guess his real plan was to go into the Middle East, bomb a whole bunch of countries, and then leave them to pick of the pieces of their ruined country.

[grannylib]

3. I'm glad someone trotted out that clip; candidate Chimp was saying

MUCH different stuff than pResdident Chimp.
His inconsistency and hypocrisy are just mind-numbing in their blatancy...

[jbfam4]

5. I agree, Granny,

But when are the American people going to wake up?

You were too kind in calling it inconsistency.....outright lies.

[phillybri]

4. Excellent point....

A crystal clear case of bait-and switch. Right up there w/ Bush's compassionate conservatism...

[Mistress Quickly]

6. I pointed this out yesterday: He did say it

but no one listened to him:

http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcript/debate_101100.asp

<Snip>

GOV. BUSH: And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with
situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein.
The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart, or it's unraveling,
let's put it that way. The sanctions are being -- are being violated.
There's -- we don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass
destruction. He better not be, or there's going to be a consequence
should I be the president.



More:


GOV. BUSH: Well, I think -- it's hard to tell. I think that --
you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle
the Iraqi situation better. I mean, we don't --

MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean?

GOV. BUSH: Yes, and --

MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there?

GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this
administration would as well. But we don't know -- there's no
inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn't as
strong as it used to be. He is a danger; we don't want him fishing in
troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard to --
it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the
pressure on him.

[BigBigBear]

8. I dug those quotes

up in a conversation about the war some months ago, as evidence, in fact, that he DID NOT say it. "It", being "I intend to take this nation to war to remove Saddam Hussein." These quotes indicate he believed that an international coalition 'to keep the pressure on' was his plan of action. In fact, that international coalition already HAD disarmed Saddam...and I believe this administration knew that. (Check out Powell's "no WMD" quote from Jan 2001.)

Clearly, rebuilding the coalition didn't matter much to Bush (he couldn't anyway, since the world community could tell he was unworthy of leadership).

To me, that's the essential difference. He spoke of building an international coalition to contain the danger of Saddam Hussein's Iraq - instead, he went to war against most international opinion.

It's the difference between erecting a fence to keep the neighbor's pitbull out of your yard...and going next door with a gun and shooting it while it is on a leash.