"What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?"

[spunky]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

February 1, 2005

BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted. . . .

(more at link)
-----

Does anybody agree with this guy? I had a similar thought over the weekend, but to me, the biggest thing that made (makes) Bush wrong, is the premise for the war. We went for our own national security interests (supposedly), not to free oppressed people (this came later-after Dubya realized he would find no WMD). I mean, if we're just in the business of liberating all oppressed people in the world, shouldn't we be invading a lot more countries? (include their beloved Saudi Arabia).

And if we did go because we were freeing oppressed people and returning them to what we see as the natural state for people to be in, namely democracy, then shouldn't that principal apply to non-democratic countries invading democratic countries. Wouldn't that mean that China, for example, could invade a non-communist country because they believe communism is the way people ought to live and they want to spread the wonders of communism?

So, if democracy succeeds in Iraq, was Bush right?

And if Bush was "right" all along, what exactly does that mean, in terms of precedence for the US and for other nations?

[cheezus]

1. mushroom cloud

[shoelace414]

What if Pigs fly?

"Pigs don't fly"

why are you downplaying how helpful flying pigs could be?

[AnnInLa]

31. You'd have pork chops in the tree-tops

and that's about the extent of it.

[cthrumatrix]

2. what if monkey's flew out of my butt !

[donheld]

55. You'd be in a world of hurt

I'm guessing it would be painful :shrug:

[NewJeffCT]

3. No

Before the war, they said human rights violations and the like were not enough to justify invasion. The justification was the immediate & real threat of WMD.

[MostlyLurks]

14. NewJeff - PLEASE TELL ME IT's SO

If you are a just and loving Jeff, you will post haste point me to a link in which a well-placed administration official says, for the record, that human rights are beside the point with regards to the Iraqi war. I've been engaged in an ongoing war with a low-level conservative pundit and this would nuke her. Please tell me it's so.

Thanks.

Mostly

[htuttle]

29. Here's some that are close

Saddam can stay if he disarms, Powell says
October 22 2002
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561443683.html?oneclick=true

Disarmed Saddam can stay in power, U.S. says; Powell, Rice retreat from ''regime change''
21-OCT-02
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2146177_ITM&referid=2090

Retreat in Downing Street: Blair's spokesman says Saddam can stay in power if he is disarmed
18 February 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=379411

Powell now hints Saddam could remain as president
Monday, October 21, 2002
http://www.iht.com/articles/74309.html

[NewJeffCT]

34. I will look it up, but I specifically remember Wolfowitz...

Saying that human rights violations alone did not justify the invasion.

[NewJeffCT]

41. sorry, no luck yet

I wonder if the WH had "edited" those websites... but, my googling skills suck.

[spunky]

I've been doing a lexis nexis search

of "wolfowitz" "human rights" and "invasion"
and "wolfowitz" "human rights" and "justification" and "iraq" and have found no articles that quote him saying this.

I did find an interesting article by a M. V. Naidu from Nov. 2002 that outlines pretty much all the reasons Bush and co. gave for going to war. Human rights is among them, but nowhere does she site them saying human rights alone IS enough nor that it IS NOT enough. (EDIT the article is in Peace Research, v.34(2) N'02 pg 1-32; ISSN: 0008-4697)

I'll keep looking too though. If somebody can suggest better search terms, please do.

[MostlyLurks]

51. Dig This.

A while back I heard about somebody who had written his/her thesis on all the various reasons given by administration and press in the run up to the war. I had the PDF on my machine forever and then lost it. Just managed to find it again:

http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

Not sure what it says, but I'm willing to bet it's quite the interesting read. Anyway, seemed semi-related to this.

Thanks for the help (and stop with spending all your money on Lexis/Nexis - it ain't like this is going to change my opponent's mind or anything!).

Mostly

[spunky]

52. I work for a University. I have free Lexis Nexis access! :)

[aquart]

4. Bush has never been right about anything.

He doesn't believe in democracy. He is a fascist. He isn't installing freedom and democracy. He's installing a puppet government held in power by death squads. Good grief, man. Get a grip!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. No democracy succeeding in Iraq is INDEPENDENT of the costs

Bush subjected us to...btw...it's a bit premature to claim it will.

[Career Prole]

6. Saaaaaaaaaay...

you are spunky, aren't you? :eyes:

[Goldmund]

7. Oh, yes, the scores of happy Iraqis...

I don't buy it one bit. I saw those Happy Iraqis (TM) already once, when they knocked down that statue. And you know how that turned out...

[K-W]

8. Hes already been 100% proven wrong, so no, EOM

[mandyky]

9. One election does not a democracy make

Even in US History, Washington said the second election and the resulting change of power (peacefully) showed that our constition andthe democracy it gave birth to was on its wayto succeeding.

[spunky]

17. I said the same thing myself

I didn't mean to imply we'd know anytime soon whether democracy will succeed in Iraq, but a decade or 15 years from now we should have a better idea.

[bowens43]

10. 100,000 murdered Iraqis say he was wrong.

And so do I. No matter the final outcome, the ends do NOT justify the means.

[Beaverhausen]

28. Exactly- nothing justifies the mass murder of innocent civilians

especially the ever-changing reasons for this invasion.

[Old Mouse]

11. Impossible supposition

The reason changed over time. He cannot be "right all along" when the reason is in a constant revision in search of something to be "right" about.

Sooner or later, the reason WILL be right, as we allow Bush the ability to adjust the past.

This talk is dangerous, as it helps us accept the current rationalizations as the original ones.

[Benhurst]

12. He had no right to murder 100,000+ innocent civilians. And

we have absolutely no right to Iraq's oil.

[judy]

13. I'm afraid a lot of people feel the way this guy does, after all the spin

on Sunday about the elections.

Smirk cannot have been "right" about Iraq all along, for the following reasons:
1 - Right about what? About WMD's? Certainly not.
2 - Right about "The Iraqis see us as Liberators"? I don't think so...Could be that they think voting is a step toward the Americans leaving...Could be that their enthusiasm is a courageous, non-violent way of saying "Yankees, Go Home!".
3 - Right about "planting the flag of freedom"? No one responsible for Abu Ghraib and other Guantanamos can claim to plant anything to do with freedom.

So right about what?? Beats me...

[Robbien]

22. Yes. Reality is in the perception. The corporate media spun madly

and created a false perception which will be reality for many.

It makes no difference what the reality really is if only a minority is aware.

[MADem]

15. WE need a new definition of 'right' then

I guess 'right' means that anyone who tried to kill his 'deddy' needs to be hunted down and put in a cage, regardless of the number of people who die, and despite the fact that we had the fucker boxed in with a very efficient no-fly zone. I guess 'right' means that we invade countries to actually LOWER the amount of oil they are able to produce and sell to the world. I guess 'right' means that dead people, children, adults, soldiers, really are 'fungible assets' and just do not matter. 'Right' also means that it's cool for the next generation, and the one after that, to have to pay the freight for the weecowboy's little game of checkers----KING ME!!

I'm not especially interested in being that kind of right, thanks much anyhooooo.....

And once Chalabi and the Southern Union take the helm, we'll see what we will see. CIA installed governments have a shelf life of about twenty years or so.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. Lying Shill. If Bush was "right" about Iraq

and presumably that means being right about Saddam & WMD, the best course of action would be to let the UN inspectors finish their work, adding coercive inspections to the menu as needed. Meanwhile continue to assemble a truly international coalition, and at least international support rather than resistance.

Was the mistake worth $300 billion, 100k Iraqis dead, and 10k dead and maimed of ours?

[BlueEyedSon]

18. OK, WHO IS WRITING THE REPLY TO THIS JERKOFF?

:)

[Burma Jones]

19. For anyone to think The Chimp even might be right about Iraq

is to live in some sort of fantasy land.

It will take years to figure out that Iraq is not Germany or Japan. However, by then, it will be an Iraqi failure, not ours.

We are trying to impose a relatively new, western, solution to a problem that has plagued this part of the world since Mohammed's Children fought over who was going to run the show. That was, what, about 800 A.D. (or CE, if you prefer)

[Lexus Liberal]

20. I don't think so but I hope so

The main justification for the war, WMD, was always a lie. Now, whatever the real reasons for this war might have been, democracy in Iraq was one of it's goals. I did have a thought like this myself over the weekend. It's just that no matter how wrong I think the war was, I still have to be optimistic and hopeful for those Iraqis who went out and voted. They were literally risking their lives to go vote for Iraqi people to represent them in a Government. One of my main reasons for opposing the war is that I don't believe that democracy can be forced upon a nation that never had it and be expected to work. Maybe the Iraqis, some of who still took that risk to go vote don't think so either. But they still hope so. My opposition to Bush and to this war aside, I hope so to.

[girl gone mad]

21. No.

And the eagerness with which Iraqis voted should only tell us that there were better ways of going about enabling a democracy than this costly, ridiculous war.

[NoSheep]

23. Nope.

[bemildred]

24. So if you rob a bank,

and fortuitously that allows the bank to collect enough insurance
to save the bank from collapse, thus saving many old widows from
starvation, were you right to rob the bank?

This is standard PR babble, propaganda, designed to get the "maybe
Bush is right" meme out there. We have a couple such threads right
now. Purely a coinkydink I expect.

[flyingfysh]

25. What if LBJ has been right about Vietnam all along?

This question could have been asked after the 1967 Vietnam election; the situation has a lot of similarities.

[Stirk]

26. Wait- which story?

The justification for invading Iraq has changed about 15 times now, so I don't see how any argument could have been "right all along".

[Lexus Liberal]

30. "All Along"

True, the "all along" part of the question makes the answer no. Hell no. As a matter of fact for most of the war Bush was wrong all along.

[housewolf]

27. Does the ends justify the means?

To me, it keeps coming down to that.

The president had an agenda going into Iraq that he hid from the American people. He mis-led us regarding the evidence he stated. He ignored good intelligence about what his adventure would cost in terms of dollars and lives, both American and Iraqi. He did not have a good plan for winning the peace. He alienated our allies, has increased anti-Americanism across the globe, upped the level of terrorism in the world and made us less safe (in my opinion). He acts out a hugely inflated ego and arrogance. He's opened the Pandora's box of pre-emptive strikes against anyone he perceives as a threat, anytime he wants without consensus or agreement. He's cost us hundreds of billions of dollars now and far into the future.

So, while he now claims a loft goal of spreading freedom and liberty across the globe (and who can really be against that???) - the question for me that comes up again and again is this... could it have been done differently, in a way much less violently and costly? And I believe the answer to that is yes.

It may be that someday in the years to come, Iraq may be a peaceful, prosperous and happy place and it will appear that Bush did a good thing.

But it will always remain that he did it dishonestly and at enormous cost. GWB abused the power that he held as the president and leader of this country.

That will be okay for people who think that the ends justify the means, but not for those who believe in the value of integrity and honesty.

[rlpincus]

32. Other ways to skin the cat

It always seemed pretty obvious to me that you could have paid Hussein off, oh let's say eight billion, and avoided the bloodshed. Instead Bush wanted to be a big man and show Daddy he's got cajones. So he commits 300 Billion to the mess, kills 100k Iraqis and guts our military and pretends its about freedom. Oh yeah, we can't even account for 8 billion that we've sent over there.

[Darranar]

45. We haven't seen the "ends" yet, so whether or not they do...

is a question that will have to wait for a while.

[housewolf]

46. Agreed.. it will be years before we know n/t

[Darranar]

33. Bush couldn't have been right all along...

because if he were right from the beginning, we would have found WMDs already.

[TimeToGo]

35. If you lie consistently

it is possible that one of them is "right."

[wadestock]

36. This type of talk makes me unproud to be an American

We are losing our way very quickly.

The so called WAR was INVENTED. HELLO?
The vote was an authorization to use force.

Bush announced Saddam had 48 hours to "get out of town".
Bush defined himself as a mental patient at that point.

They proceeded quickly to WAR...because Bush had to have Saddam. He used a highly trained volunteer Army as the means to that end. Bush...he doesn't give 2 shits about peace throughout the world. He does, however want to have his name in the history books, and unfortunately there are a dozen bad businessmen lurking in the wings that have seized the opportunity to make this a wonderful business enterprise.

They'll keep us in a state of WAR...it works for them....and the stupid American public fell for it and re-elected the scum bag.

It is defacto...the worse time in US history.

Kerry was on Meet the Press....and he pulled from his suitjacket an article....put it in the camera ....which said
"World Bank shuns US assets"

Yes....you're right Kerry, with all the attention on the war, it's even more pathetic that most Americans don't notice the country going bankrupt.

Bush has put us in a financial tailspin to hell. With the tax breaks, the spending, the war effort to reach ultimately 1 trillion dollars before we pull out, we WON'T be able to pay down the debt. Even worse, because of this article that Kerry is talking about, what we're faced with in the next few years is the fact THAT WE'LL BE FORCED TO INCREASE INTEREST RATES OR ELSE NO ONE IS GOING TO FINANCE THIS ENORMOUS DEBT.

People will ultimately liken this whole thing to the Russians in Afghanistan. They didn't pull out due to military defeat or any substantial losses due to Stinger missles being shot at them. They lost an average of 3 people per day for 10 years, and said WTF is this worth it?

[JHB]

37. If Bush was right...

...he could have made an honest case for attacking Iraq. There was one. Plenty of people on "our" side of the divide were protesting the toll the sanctions were taking on the Iraqi people but not on their target -- Saddam. A case could have been made for assembling an international coalition to oust Saddam and finally let the country go about rebuilding itself.

But that wasn't the Neocon plan (too much icky "nation-building").

And consider how badly the Bushies bungled the overthrow: Short of outright defeat, just about everything they could have done wrong they HAVE done wrong: not enough forces to secure weapons depots and maintain civil order, naked corruption among those charged with "rebuilding", they cost us the trust of the world, they've cost us the ability to make human rights a means to bring pressure for freedom in the world, he's wrecking our economy, our military, and out future.

I wish the Iraqi people the best, but Bush is wrong on all counts.

[leesa]

71. The Iraqis never asked us to oust Saddam. They asked us to end the

sanctions so they could take care of Saddam themselves. ONLY the US and Israel opposed it (big surprise)

Who the hell are we to depose leaders without them asking for it???
GD paternalitic arrogance of Americans.

[leesa]

38. Ummmm...it was STILL an unprovoked, illegal invasion of a disarmed

country. Absolutely nothing has changed. Why are these reporters so blessedly ignorant???

[spunky]

39. I think some people are asking questions in a different light

i.e. If all goes well for the Iraqi people, should you call the war wrong based on principles? Or if the Iraqi people are better off in the long run, does that make up for the lies, lives, money etc.?

I'm not sure myself. I'm a big believer in principle, never really counted myself as an ends justify the means kind of girl, but is that a sort of intellectual copout? Is the most important thing the material, physical situation on the ground for the majority of the people? Or is it principle? Put another way, are ideas more important than physical reality?

[bemildred]

40. So it's purely a matter of what is most expedient? nt

[spunky]

42. No, I don't mean that at all

I mean if you oppose the war based on an ideal, a principal such as: nation building doesn't work, cost in dollars, cost in human lives, illegal war, etc. should that IDEAL be more important than the freedom of millions of individuals who, if democracy DOES succeed in Iraq, will unarguably be better off than they were under Saddam.

Are ideals more important than actual, living people who may (or may not) benefit in the long run from this war?

I don't know. I'm asking for opinions.

[bemildred]

44. See post #24.

but anyway, this seems confused, "the freedom of millions of individuals
who, if democracy DOES succeed in Iraq, will unarguably be better off
than they were under Saddam" is the ideal, and it has nothing whatever
to do with Bush's policies in Iraq, as a goal, even as something that
would be allowed. If that ideal is achieved it will be despite Bush
and his policies.

If you are just trying to put the question whether one should be
expedient and utlitarian in making judgements about these things, or
utopian and idealistic, then I would say that a mixed strategy must be
pursued, it is a matter or judgement in each case whether the pursuit
of principles and ideals is worth the cost, and that would be my attitude
here too.

[leesa]

70. That's irrelevant. It was illegal and immoral. How are the tens of

thousands of dead civilians better off than they were under Saddam????

What stupid logic!

Under Saddam they had food, jobs and no bombs raining down on them.

[Dr Fate]

43. where are the "tons" of Nuclear, Chemical & biological weapons?

Until those are uncovered, this war was based on lies.

Lies are NEVER "right."

[jazzjunkysue]

47. We're not freeing Zimbabwe 'cause they don't got ar oil. They don't count.

Please, please remember that we're an oil ecomony, and we're out of it. Iraq sits on the largest supply, and controlling the middle east oil, including the countries around it, is the single issue of this president. Stop drinking the cool aid. These people are now our colony, permanently.

Plus, the war makes Smirky feel tough. And upstage his Daddy. And his brother. Cause he's been a miserable failure at everything he's ever attempted.

There is no freedom or democracy, it's all a sham.

[shrike]

48. Who says it's going to succeed?

The "election" happened two days ago, and the MSM, as well as the GOPers, are acting like it's a fait accompli, Bush was right and we should all go back to bed now.

If memory serves me correctly, the same thing happened after Mission Accomplished and the fake statue tumbling.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

49. The US govt. PREVENTS DEMOCRACY whenever possible.

...including right here at home. The toppling of elected leaders who they don't like is the norm for 100 years now.

Example: the 2/04 US coup in Haiti.

The idea that democracy could ever be the motive or result of US govt. actions is absolutely preposterous and in direct contradiction with documented history.

Democracy is the enemy of fascism.
This is a fascist culture and government.
----------------------------------
Here is something I wrote in a thread about education:

From 'What's the Matter With Kids Today' by Tina Blue-

"We are not born socialized or civilized. Despite the sentimental nonsense we like to spout about how innocent and adorable babies are, the fact is that babies and small children are adorable to serve their own purposes, not ours: to get us to do what they want, and to prevent us from turning on them when their insatiable demands and impulsive, outrageous behavior start to push us over the edge."

"It takes an enormous amount of time, energy, and attention to socialize an infant, to make him fit for human company."

Sentimentality of innocence?!! Insatiable demands!?

>>>>!!??Fit for human company??!!<<<

This characterization of a human child's needs as PSYCHOPATHIC indicates the author's own besieged mentality at the same time Tina Blue correctly describes an entire culture of isolation from community that sabotages parent and child alike.

While the problem of un-socialized children acting out their rage and pain is common to her essays (and I agree that's true), the root of their disruptive angst is wrongly claimed to be a sentimental permissive 'love' matches James Dobson's authoritarian views promoted by fascists-have the courage to beat them until they know "who's boss." There is so much more to socializing happy healthy humans.

Yes, the stress of the poverty this fascistic culture demands is mentioned in Tina Blue's essays. But the idea that children (and citizens) are vicious monsters who must be policed into submission is
EXACTLY how FASCISM BEGINS IN THE HOME. Terrorism is intentionally made a part of our psychological environment to justify the police-state and embed an emotional 'early-scorning system' in people to divide and conquer the masses lest they cooperate peacefully.

I can't stress this enough!>>>>>CONSIDER THIS>>>>>>

Amnesty International codified the 8 common methods used on prisoners to break their will and control their minds.

It is called 'Biderman's Chart of Coercions.'
http://www.actabuse.com/chartofcoercion.html

STUDY THIS CAREFULLY BECAUSE IT SHOWS WHAT EVERY CHILD GOES THROUGH TO BE SOCIALIZED BY LARGER ADULTS AND AUTHORITY FIGURES.
Domestic abuse counselors now refer to it because of its applicability to abusive relationships where usually women are terrorized. I suggest it is the core of the Republican Party Platform.

1) Isolation
2) Monopolization of Perception
3) Induced Debility and Exhaustion
4) Threats
5) Occasional Indulgences
6) Demonstrating 'Omnipotence'
7) Enforcing Trivial Demands
8) Degradation

HUMAN CHILDREN ALL COGNITIVELY EXPERIENCE TORTURE IN THE SOCIALIZATION PROCESS WHILE GROWING UP. Some get a gentler version than others.We all have unique brain chemical dispositions and experiences which determine how well we endure and recover from the torturing socialization of childhood.WE ARE ALL CHILDREN OF ABU GHRAIB.

These coercions are institutionalized AS A WAY OF LIFE for the entire population in fascist America's isolated and fearful culture that was beautifully exposed by Michael Moore in his movie 'Bowling For Columbine.'

Blame the left over brutality of 'might-makes-right' animal survival mechanism that our species has been outgrowing while only barely beginning to institutionalize a kinder gentler life with democracy and nurturing of the weak. This brutality is intentionally being kept in place by the need for fearfulness and bullying which TV induces in the service of the Military Industrial Fascist Complex and its economic policies of eugenics and permanent war.

Children are at the front lines as a source for obtaining worker drones and cannon fodder. Public education was designed to serve the needs of society’s financial elite who require an inhumane societal construct for their ends and it is working just as designed. Whoever isn’t helping ‘their team’ compete with ‘the opposing team’ is starved, imprisoned, or killed.

http://www.sntp.net/education/gatto.htm
>snip<
This is taken from John Taylor Gatto's book, Dumbing UsDown: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling.

This speech was given by the author on 31 January 1990 in accepting an award from the New York State Senate naming him New York CityTeacher of the Year.

THE PSYCHOPATHIC SCHOOL

"1 don't think we'll get rid of schools any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime, but if we're going to change what's rapidly becoming a disaster of ignorance, we need to realize that the school institution "schools" very well, though it does not "educate" that's inherent in the design of the thing. It's not the fault of bad teachers or too little money spent. It's just impossible for education and schooling ever to be the same thing.

Schools were designed by Horace Mann and by Sears and Harper of the University of Chicago and by Thorndyke of Columbia Teachers College and by some other men to be instruments of the scientific management of a mass population. Schools are intended to produce, through the application of formulas, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled."

>snip<

Gatto explained that The Behavioral Science Teacher Education Project "identified the future as one 'in which a small elite' will control all important matters, one where participatory democracy will largely disappear. Children are made to see, through school experiences, that their classmates are so cruel and irresponsible, so inadequate to the task of self-discipline, and so ignorant they need to be controlled and regulated for society's good. Under such a logical regime, school terror can only be regarded as good advertising. It is sobering to think of mass schooling as a vast demonstration project of human inadequacy, but that is at least one of its functions."

>snip<

As a bit of background, the industrial titans of the 1890's began to think that not only could the production line be engineered, but people's lives could be engineered as well, in order to work like homogeneous robots with the machines. People like Rockefeller and Carnegie gave huge sums to prominent academics to see if this could be realized through the educational system. They found that to a considerable extent it could, and it is still being done today as evidenced in the Congressional Record during the Clinton administration. This is the story that John Gatto has to tell.

Please read this speech by Gatto where he quotes the eugenics-embracing robber barons who designed schooling to be mind control for their economic benefit:
http://4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm
(A Short Angry History of American Forced Schooling)
>snip<

"Between 1906 and 1920, a handful of world famous industrialists and financiers, together with their private foundations, handpicked University administrators and house politicians, and spent more attention and more money toward forced schooling than the national government did. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller alone spent more money than the government did between 1900 and 1920. In this fashion, the system of modern schooling was constructed outside the public eye and outside the public's representatives.

Now I want you to listen to a direct quote, I have not altered a word of this, it's certainly traceable through your local librarians. From the very first report issued by John D. Rockefeller's General Education Board -- this is their first mission statement:

"In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, (he's really covering the whole gamut of employment isn't he?) statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply (whoever the pronoun we is meant to stand for there). The task issimple. We will organize children and teach them in an perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way."

>snip<

Here is the root of fascism in America and why its parents and schools are producing a New American Brownshirt movement amplified by FoxNews.

Because schools DO WORK!!

Once parenting, schools, and the economic constructs of society stop resembling Abu Ghraib, we will see adults who aren't acting out their rebellion from their torturers. And teachers will have classrooms that resemble peace rallies more than prison riots.

[Turbineguy]

50. The idea that if everything turns out OK

that Bush was right is specious.

If things turn out well in Iraq it will be because smarter, more honest people than Bush will have overcome the problems Bush created.

That's going to take a lot. But Bush will never, ever be right.

In my view, we would have ended up over there anyway. Saddam Hussein was brilliant at provoking and doing the exact wrong thing. That's how he ended up in GWI. Besides, if he was a good ruler, he would not have needed all those secret police guys to stay in power.

At some point Blix would have said something like, "Look, I'm 71 and I don't have time for this shit!" Either the truth would have come out or the UN would have blessed going in after Hussien and we would have had a real coalition of the willing including Middle East nations.

The Iraqi's so it would seem did not fight (very much anyway) the U.S. to keep Hussein in charge. They fight the U.S because it is an occupying power.

I am sure that there were some very nice Germans during WWII that were killed by the Resistance, not because they were nice but because they were occupiers. It's been that way throughout history. The Neocons who started this adventure had some sort of warped view of history and some serious delusions.

The only way out of this mess is that people come together realizing this mess has to be solved. For that to happen, the people who are the cause of it have to be out of the picture. That day is 4 years away. That was the promise of the last election. An early resolution.

[Ironpost]

53. All I know is if * was right I don't belong here.

[mandyky]

54. If even half of the "supposedly free and liberal media" would

do their jobs, noone wouldfall for this kind of thought process. This administration and their plausible deniabilty and zillion ever changing reason for almost anything is so constant, that when the 4th estate doesn't do their jobs, people do forget the real reason we were initially given for Iraq.

Look at the Plame investigation. You think once Alberto the torturer get AG he'll let the investigation continue? Not bloody likely. And Plame was about the war and the 16 words from the SOTU speech from 2 years ago (or was it three).

[ComerPerro]

56. I really doubt his sincerity

Sounds like that "I used to be a Democrat, but I am just disgusted with the party and now I support Bush" BS that is so widespread.

And no, Bush was not right about Iraq.

Everything Bush said about Iraq was a lie.

[donheld]

57. OMG it's the "What if" game

What if i'd been born with a face and bank account like Brad Pitt?
What if i'd been born with powers like Samatha Stephens on Bewitched?
What if i'd been born with real psychic powers?

ok i'm bored :boring: now

[Disturbed]

60. Bush and his Junta have won.

The majority of Americans believe the Shrub regarding spreading freedom and fighting the War On Terror regarding Iraq. The Iraqis are now free and democracy will spread in the world. The nuances of the actual situation are too complicated and will be ignored. Americans love winners and hate losers. The Pres. is a winner and America is great and always right.

[LynnTheDem]

58. Suntimes is total rightwingnut trash...look who owns it

It's bad for your health and kills braincells; don't read the crap!

[KG]

59. another bush apologist.

how nice :eyes:

[Hamlette]

61. The election in 1967 Vietnam as a smashing success too

the jury is still out in Iraq. And it will be for many years to come.

[ctaylor]

62. official justification for Iraq War

"We went for our own national security interests (supposedly), not to free oppressed people (this came later-after Dubya realized he would find no WMD)."

Uh, not exactly. Here is a couple of excerpts from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html):

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region...",

" repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688",

and best of all

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"



The problem is the Bush administration decided to "dumb down" the justifications for the war and focus on WMDs (since all the major countries intel agencies seemed quite certain they had them... and surely they all couldn't be wrong) and the more traditionally conservative justification of natl security instead of the more traditionally liberal justification of spreading liberty and democracy. If Bush had "discovered" the idealism of his inauguration address a little sooner and pushed his administration to talk up the liberal aspects of the war declaration then I think we'd be a much better diplomatic position internationally. Oh, I'm sure that the foreign diplomats would still be giving us grief, since that is the "currency" of negotiations... it's their job to act upset at anything so they can use it as a bargaining chip. But the world population as a whole would probably be a lot better disposed toward us. The apparent success of the Iraq election has seemed to help our reputation around the world some. Imagine how much better it would have played if the administration had explained the whole thing that way from the beginning instead of oversimplifying a complex issue. I guess they didn't have much confidence in people's idealism or intelligence, and I'm sure they are regretting it now.

I hope, though probably it is in vain, that they have an additional "secret" justification of breaking the back of OPEC. I think we should be leaning a lot harder on the Saudis than we have been. They seem to be at the center of a lot of our problems with radical Islamists and terrorists. I know a lot of people suspect that the Bush's familiarity with the Saudi royal family is the reason (as you mentioned); but it would be a pleasant surprise to discover that they were just waiting to play rough with them until we knew they couldn't threaten us with another gas crisis. Yeah, I know. I guy can still hope.

"Wouldn't that mean that China, for example, could invade a non-communist country because they believe communism is the way people ought to live and they want to spread the wonders of communism?" Like Tibet? Or that the Soviet Union could invade Czechoslovakia? But neither the PRC or the old Soviet superpower had the strength to carry their "revolution" to every corner of the globe. Even as a hyperpower I don't think we have the power to overthrow every tyrant on the planet. But when idealism and pragmatism magically align, then I think setting up fellow free nations is a lot better policy than the old Cold War tactic of supporting dictators as long as they were anti-communist.

"And if Bush was "right" all along, what exactly does that mean, in terms of precedence for the US and for other nations?"

It would be really nice if it meant that Iran would let us come in and verify that THEY don't have a nuke program. But I'm not holding my breath. They strike me as slow learners.

[spanone]

63. I don't buy into that theory at all. We invaded a SOVEREIGN NATION.

Regardless of the outcome we are the occupiers we are the aggressors.
edit:sp.

[theboss]

64. In a way, it's like the Mexican War.

Or something. I'm having trouble with the analogy.

The build-up to the war will never be "right." The execution of the war will never be right. But 100 years from now, if Iraq is viewed no differently than any other western democracy, Bush will deserve some level of credit.

Much like the Mexican War will never be moral, but we shouldn't give back California either.

I guess I believe that some good fruit can grow from a poisonous tree. It's just not a risk you should take.

[ctaylor]

66. Thank You

For picking a war besides Vietnam!

I am sick of hearing baby-boomers automatically grab for Vietnam analogies like the only war we ever fought was the one during their formative years.

I hadn't thought of Mexico yet. I think the Phillipines has some parallels too.

[theboss]

69. It's hard to find any good in the Phillipines

We slaughtered people in the island, made them a colony, which led to Japan invading, which led to us re-invading, and then when we gave them independence, handed them over to Marcos. I guess we got some cheap rubber out of the deal.

But the Mexican War is the classic bad war yields positive results. There wasn't a justification for the war then; there isn't one now. But the US wouldn't look anything like the US without that war.

[WLKjr]

65. Funny I thought the same thing for a few seconds

They will attempt to use Iraq as a justification to go ahead with the Social Security issue. If you can't see this one comming you must be blind I say. Let them try to take it away from me, I won't let them.


We need another FDR......

[Javaman]

67. That's one big ass "what if"...

[Swamp Rat]

68. Very dumb question from an infotainer.

Bush cannot be right about anything since he is just a woodenhead, a puppet.

[AgadorSparticus]

72. If bush is right, where are the WMD's? enough with the diversionary

tactics. bush lied and people died... and all for what????

[ClayZ]

73. What if someone gave bu$h 24 hrs. to cough up nukes...

Remember... the ...day ....leading ... up to.... the...

SHOCK AND AWE!!!!

bu$h knew there were no weapons... DUH!

[MrPrax]

74. Jon Stewart was musing this same thing...

A couple of night's ago while interviewing the Newsweek editor--Zaharia

In fact his quip was almost verbatim--"What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?"

I thought the same thing then watching as re-reading it in the form of a Sun Times column? Right about what? How does throwing a less than adequate election two years after an illegal invasion show he was right. The democracy thing was invented after everything else failed--an old reliable standby.

The strange part about having an election, is you usually have winners, outcomes and stuff? Funny how there is a rush to judgement when the most important aspect of an election is eeriely missing and ignored

[shrike]

75. I think it's far too early to tell

The election was two days ago, fer chrissake. The statue fell, and all was well. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and all was well.

Come back in six months and ask that question -- or a year, maybe longer.

[killbotfactory]

76. Maybe we should re-invade Vietnam?

You know, finish the job.

[ClayZ]

77. "Swift boat Vetrans for truth" could go first!

And bu$h could finally finish is National Guard duty. Did you hear him say Duty?

[bgb217]

78. re Bush is wrong

Bush will never have been right about Iraq all along, as his original justifications for the war have been proven permanently false.

[Mokito]

79. The biggest mistake...

is this nonsense believe that the Iraqi elections where some kind of closure that vindicated bush' policies. At best these elections are the first step on a long and bumpy road to wards a stable (semi) democratic nation. At worst (and this is what I sadly believe to be the most realistic) the elections were only the prelude to a long drawn and vicious civil war.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Then thousands, or hundreds of thousands, would have been killed

by chemical and biological weapons. Perhaps even by nuclear weapons.

If anyone has been proved to be 'right all along', it's al Sistani. He said the Shia wanted to vote (earlier than Bush did - remember, the Americans cancelled earlier ones:

June 29th, 2003

United States military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, instead installing their own hand-picked mayors and administrators, many of them former Iraqi military leaders.

The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the US-led occupation forces are not keeping their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for by Saddam Hussein for 30 years.
...
Mr Bremer has promised that as soon as an Iraqi constitution is written and a national census taken, local and national elections will follow. But that process could take months.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/29/1056825280190.html

So they never got round to the census, or a proper constitution. Months? Try years. If they'd held local elections (and a host of other things - employing Iraqi companies for reconstruction where possible, using the Iraqi army for things like reconstruction or guarding the pipelines, not making priviatisation and flat tax laws) then they might have looked to the Iraqis that they did care about self-determination and democracy. But Bush got all of that wrong too.