Dennis, thank you for reading my article and commenting on
it.
Let me
say right up front that if I were a conservative talk radio
host and you were a caller, I would have to assume that you were a
seminar caller. The reason being, that although you profess to
be a Republican, all you're showing me here is Democrat
rhetoric. My impression is that you know a great
deal more about Democrat talking points than you do about the
evidence that debunks them. This is generally the view people
get from the mainstream media and Democrat talking heads on tv when
they have no access to or interest in the opposing views.
For example: "...but his failure to be forthright,
honest, and complete about the need to invade Iraq. In other words
the majority of people in this country think he lied his way into
Iraq."
You
made 2 statements here that come straight from the Democrats.
1. Bush failed to be forthright, honest, and
complete about the need to invade Iraq. Only Democrats
believe that. Bush looked at all of the evidence presented to
him by the CIA and came to the conclusion that Iraq was a "grave
and growing threat" to the post 911 US. It was a danger
to our national security that he could not afford to gamble on
(Remember the Bush Doctrine). He firmly believed that,
based on the evidence, and so did 99% of Congress. He did
not mislead the American people or Congress.
The
congressional Intelligence committees had access to exactly the
same information that Bush did and they supported him in the
invasion. It was only during the 2004 campaigns
that Democrats started trying to rewrite history and change
their story. When they say Bush misled Congress - that is a
lie. The intelligence Congress had access to did not come
from Bush, it came from the CIA. Bush had to sell the
invasion to the American people and used all the intelligence the
CIA gave him to do that. He did what had to be done, and to
sell a product or issue, you don't use questionable data that
doesn't agree with what you're promoting. His job was to
sell the invasion in the best interests of our country and
national security. A fact that Democrats have tried to
remove from the history books.
2. "In other words the majority of people in this
country think he lied his way into Iraq." Only
Democrats pretend to speak for the "majority of the people"
and somehow think they know what the majority is thinking - they
don't. They only know what people are thinking in Washington
DC and that's a whole different world. But what about the
polls, you say? Media polls are always skewed to the left,
even the Fox News polls. It's not always intentional,
perhaps it's just because Democrats are more likely to respond to
survey takers on the phone than Republicans. Poll questions
are often "loaded" to get the response that the poll takers
want. If you look at the demographics at the bottom of any
poll data you will see that invariably, 10 to 20% more democrats
participated in the poll than Republicans and that always skews
the results. They don't mean a thing. Most media polls
are designed to get the result the media outlet wants and that is
normally left wing views. It's no different than using
"clinical studies" to sell a product. The study is paid for
by the product seller to get the result they want.
Next, you say: "...they have come to power only recently
and to bring up the vast blunders they have made in the distant past
only makes us look like sore loosers." I am not aware
that I brought up any blunders from their past in my article.
Everything I discussed is based on current Democrat rhetoric over
the past 4 years. Then you say: "We have nobody to blame
but ourselves for Iraq; we were the ones in power. We failed to
exercise it properly and wisely." I agree that
Republicans in Congress failed to exercise their power properly and
wisely, but not on the issue of Iraq. In my opinion, their
biggest blunder and failure to exercise their power properly was in
constant compromise with, and acting like Democrats in the
legislation produced. Expanding government, excessive and
irresponsible spending, etc. They appeared more irresponsible
with the taxpayers' money, and less responsive to the
people than Democrats ever were. After being out of power
for so many years, they seem to have gotten drunk on it and forgot
all of the Republican conservative principles. They deserved
to loose their power (on loan from the people) but the people do not
deserve to have the Dems in power either. This country
deserves better from both parties.
So you say what I wrote is pure speculation? It's more
like logic. If Saddam had not been removed and still
controlled Iraq, our intelligence now would be no better than it was
then simply because we had no current intelligence sources in
Iraq. The UNMOVIC inspectors were not going to be there much
longer whether we invaded or not. The only reason they were
allowed in at all was because of the threat of war. Saddam
played them like a fiddle and was in full control of what they were
allowed to see and not see. Do you think they had free reign
of the country? Think again. They had to report their
itinerary to Saddam's regime and have it approved in advance of
ever leaving the compound. Saddam knew where they were and
where they were going at all times and carefully made sure they
didn't find any WMD. When the invasion looked eminent, Saddam,
with the help of Russian intelligence, move most of the WMD out of
the country. Not only has that been testified to by Saddam's
own Air Force General, Georges Sada, but we also have satellite
photos of the material being loaded and moved across the Syrian
border as I stated.
In addition to that evidence, captured audio tapes and
documents after the invasion provided proof of ongoing WMD programs
and nuclear research. I have some of that evidence posted on
my website. There was no doubt that Saddam was as determined
as Ahmadinejad to continue his weapons programs just as soon as the
inspectors were out of the way. The removal of the UN
inspectors was already advancing in the UN when Bush decided we had
waited long enough and the effort was futile. I believe he was
right. Further UN negotiations and inspections were useless
and getting nowhere with Saddam.
The logical conclusion (not speculation) is that had we not
invaded Iraq, Saddam would be continuing with his weapons programs,
the grave and growing threat to America would be even greater now,
and we would still have no way of knowing what was really going on
in Iraq. If you really are a Republican, then don't let the
Dems fool you with their attempts to rewrite history. The ones
creating the rhetoric are liars, the ones repeating it are
fools.
It's true that post invasion Iraq has not gone all that well
but the cause of that, for the most part, is interference from Iran,
Syria, and al Qaeda who have been arming and supplying the
insurgency. The Bush administration failed to anticipate that
and is now beginning to deal with it at it's source. Since the
start of "the surge", useless killings in Iraq have dropped in half
and insurgent leadership has been dramatically reduced by killing or
capturing them. This trend should continue with more troops
being sent in. Iran has committed acts of war against us US in
supplying ordinance and support that was directly responsible
for at least 170 US troop deaths in Iraq. They're going to
have to pay a price for those acts of war before long.
You say life in Iraq was better under Saddam. That all
depends on how you look at it. There is no question that it's
a pretty scary place right now, but then when isn't it
scary when a war is going on. There are two problems
contributing to that: Terrorist attacks and
unemployment. They had unemployment under Saddam but the
didn't have the terrorist attacks. Instead, they had the
constant fear of Saddam's goon squads and never knew when they would
be coming to torture and kill. Not much different than the
current terrorist attacks when you come right down to it.
Their current infrastructure is now much better than it was with
Saddam. Better utilities, better schools, better hospitals,
free enterprise, and investing in their own stock market as are
foreigners. They now have cellphones, public television and
satellite tv. They have internet access. They had non of
this under Saddam, instead they lived with constant fear of
Saddam.
They don't much like us (except the Kurds) and don't want us
in their country. But they don't want us to leave either until
the terrorists are defeated. Personally, I don't trust any of
them not to stab you in the back when you're not looking, and
neither do the troops serving there. The sooner we get out of
there the better, but not without victory over the terrorists and
insurgents. The worst thing we could to would be to leave the
country at their mercy. Then we'd just have to do this all
over again in a few years.
"One thing for sure is we wouldn't have nearly 3,000 dead
or 20,000 wounded..." Now there you go again quoting
statistics straight from the Democrat's enemy scoreboard. What
you fail to realize is that these numbers are extremely low compared
to any previous war. People die in war, that's a fact of
war. We don't need to keep score of the enemy's
successes. Our 3000 losses are nothing compared to the
approximately 45,000 losses of the enemy but the media never tells
you that, do they? We've been in Iraq for almost 4 years now
and lost a little over 3000 troops. In Vietnam, we were
loosing 300 men per week or 5000 per year. So don't tell me
that 3000 losses over a 4 year period is unacceptable. It's a
war and we're doing a damn good job of protecting our troops the
best we can, and the troops are doing a damn good job of destroying
the enemy. Now it up to our government to deal with causes of
the continued insurgency, primarily Iran and Syria.
I'm surprised you didn't mention "the civil war in Iraq
too". Since you didn't, I won't have to explain why the
violence in Iraq is not a "civil war" and a "civil war"
is not why we're there.
"The biggest loser in all of this is President Bush for
history will surely judge him to be one of the worse presidents this
country ever elected." That's just more Democrat rhetoric
and you should know it. With all that Bush has accomplished
with the economy, employment, and bringing democracy to
the Middle East, it's more likely that in time he will go down in
history as one of America's greatest presidents providing he
can get Iraq under control before the end of his term. You're
quoting Hillary Clinton when you say that so how can you be a
Republican? If you're registered as a Republican then you are
a RINO and should either switch parties, or learn the other side of
the story which you seem to know little about. If you're
interested, then I invite you to subscribe to my free
newsletter. You should find it most enlightening.
Again, I thank you for writing and expressing your views.
Best wishes,
Techniguy
