by Techniguy | March 3, 2007
The following is a reply I received from a reader on my article "WHAT IF WE HADN'T INVADED IRAQ?", followed by my reply to him.  I'm publishing it here because I think some of you may find it interesting and helpful in debating some of the criticisms about the issue of Iraq.  Dennis claims to be a "centrist Republican" (whatever that is), but espouses nothing but Democrat rhetoric.  It makes you wonder how many who call themselves "Republicans" are being fooled by this rhetoric, or are just pretending to be Republicans - like John McCain.
I read and appreciate your recent article "WHAT IF WE HADN'T INVADED IRAQ?" at While I'm a centrist Republican I must take issue with arguments put forth.

In my opinion, the resistance to President Bush's involement in Iraq is not so much because of the reasons he gave 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.

We Republicans must be careful when we begin pointing at the Democratic (sad) majority. Afterall 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. We have nobody to blame but ourselves for Iraq; we were the ones in power. We failed to exercise it properly and wisely.

What would have happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Your scenerio is interesting and would be a great relief to know we did the right thing. Sadly what you write is mere speculation.

At this point the answers to this question can and should be found in what has happened as a result of the war - good, bad or otherwise.

Sure, Saddam would still be in power if we hadn't invaded, but the average ordinary Iraqi citizen's life would be much better than it is today. One thing for sure is we wouldn't have nearly 3,000 dead or 20,000 wounded American soldiers; 800 dead and 3,000 wounded allied contractors; 10,000 - 70,000 dead Iraqi citizens and over $1 billion dollars per day spent in support of this war.

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 is heartbreaking.

Thank you for your time



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,
Site Meter
PLEASE do not use Techniguy's Newsletter email addresses in group mailing lists.
You may post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list. To Subscribe or Unsubscribe go to:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.