What if Bush Was Right?

[Gravitymaster 0]

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.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

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


It warms my heart to see that some on the left are starting to get it.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

What if it turns out Bush was right

Like if there really where WMD that could be deployed against US/UK interests in 45 mins?
Or that Sadam was involved in 911?



Ok, seriously... right about what?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

What if it turns out Bush was right

Like if there really where WMD that could be deployed against US/UK interests in 45 mins?
Or that Sadam was involved in 911?



Ok, seriously... right about what?

Gee.. why don't you read the article. I don't think it mentioned the WMD's the entire world thought he had. But thats probably because the writer didn't say he was right about every detail, just that maybe Bush was right about establishing a Democracy in Iraq.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I did read the article... but that's where I have problems with it.

See there's not that much dispute about how establishing democracy in Iraq being a good thing. Everyone agrees that would be wicked… thus there’s no dispute about Bush being right there… thus surely the writer can’t be talking about that.

Where people think Bush was wrong is with regard to whether or not establishing democracy had anything to do with why Bush wanted to go into Iraq; whether or not he communicated that thought process to his bosses, the public; and whether or not the cost in terms of the lives and limbs of coalition soldiers as well as the pure $$ amount was worth it.

I see lots of people saying Bush is wrong about those elements of the situation… elements this article fails to address. So yeah - Bush was right - democracy in Iraq would be cool to achieve… but that’s not exactly the point now is it... that's not what your countrymen are complaining about.

Now I'm not expressing a view on these points - just highlighting the fact that the article kinda glosses over them. In other words... the writer completely misses the point.

[Lindsey 0]

I think it will be wonderful if democracy is established in Iraq. I'll be especially glad that something good has been accomplished from this HUGE faux pas of ours. Besides the good that may come for the people of Iraq, we'll save face at some level, and that will be good too. However....just because good comes of it, it will NEVER mean that we were (or Bush was) right. The stated purpose of our invasion was national security. Turns out that we didn't need to defend our national security. So we were wrong. Improved conditions for Iraqis will be good, but to backstep and say, "There....see, we were right all along...." Well, it sounds like the logic that my child often uses.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SkyDekker 1,465]

That is not the right question to ask though. It should be, if Iraq has a positive ending, does the end justify the means...

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Ok, seriously... right about what?

If I'm reading the article correctly, right about it being (a) possible, and (b) worth the price, to establish a democratic government in Iraq.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mikkey 0]

The article is a good example how to "spin". Democracy was not the justification given to go to war. Reasons given were a) Iraq is a threat with its WMD's and b) Iraq has not disarmed as demanded. Both reasons have been shown to be bogus.

There are many brutal dictatorships around the world. Is the US to invade all those countries now?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[dorbie 0]

No they haven't infact one of the reasons has been proven to be the case unless you deliberately ignore evidence. Without reliable verification before the war the point is moot in anycase. The pattern of 12 years of evasiveness and flouting resolutions played a role here. Beyond this there were other reasons given as mitigating circumstances. It was stated up front that getting rid of Saddam would be a worthwhile goal in itself as a way to bolster the case and the positive geopolitical implications for the region were clearly stated. Other information that's come to light since the invasion further bolsters the case, for example the corruption in the oil for food program and the discovery of mass graves.

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if it turns out Bush was right

Like if there really where WMD that could be deployed against US/UK interests in 45 mins?
Or that Sadam was involved in 911?



Ok, seriously... right about what?

Gee.. why don't you read the article. I don't think it mentioned the WMD's the entire world thought he had. But thats probably because the writer didn't say he was right about every detail, just that maybe Bush was right about establishing a Democracy in Iraq.

The only reason the "world" thought he had them was that Bush (and Powell) told the world what turned out to be a bunch of lies.

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[ninjaswooper 0]

The question is Bush right, assumes that democracy in Iraq was Bush's primary goal in Iraq. However we know he sold the war to the American people not by stressing the benefits of a free Iraq, but rather by warning us of what horrors awaited us if we allowed that "madman" to remain in control of a massive arsenal of WMD... why they could even deploy them against American interests in 45 min. or less.

Even if you disregard the fact that the premise for war Americans were sold on was totally false, it's still a bit early to declare that democracy has taken hold in Iraq, particularly when said "democracy" continues to be propped up by an invading foreign army. My guess is that we may be staring another "mission accomplished" moment in the face.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if it turns out Bush was right

Like if there really where WMD that could be deployed against US/UK interests in 45 mins?
Or that Sadam was involved in 911?



Ok, seriously... right about what?

Gee.. why don't you read the article. I don't think it mentioned the WMD's the entire world thought he had. But thats probably because the writer didn't say he was right about every detail, just that maybe Bush was right about establishing a Democracy in Iraq.

The only reason the "world" thought he had them was that Bush (and Powell) told the world what turned out to be a bunch of lies.

You may want to read up on why the UN imposed sanctions and carried out inspections for twelve years. You may also want to research what independent British, French, Italian, German etc. Intel thought.

[tmontana 0]

People are making too much of this election. It means nothing until our troops are out of there.

Just as a thought.
here is an article from 1967
Clicky

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or exiled in subsequent shifts of power.

Significance Not Diminished

The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step that has been taken.

The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.

American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in elections for local officials last spring.

Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was 62 per cent.

Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging from the reports from Saigon.

NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.

___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[rushmc 23]

Quote

That is not the right question to ask though. It should be, if Iraq has a positive ending, does the end justify the means...

YES

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if it turns out Bush was right

Like if there really where WMD that could be deployed against US/UK interests in 45 mins?
Or that Sadam was involved in 911?



Ok, seriously... right about what?

Gee.. why don't you read the article. I don't think it mentioned the WMD's the entire world thought he had. But thats probably because the writer didn't say he was right about every detail, just that maybe Bush was right about establishing a Democracy in Iraq.

The only reason the "world" thought he had them was that Bush (and Powell) told the world what turned out to be a bunch of lies.

LIE Everbody, including the UN thought he had them .......and he did have them.....hell , he proved that by using them......dam, give it up!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[metalslug 36]

Quote

What if Bush Was Right?

Then, as kallend would say, he owes beer.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The article is a good example how to "spin". Democracy was not the justification given to go to war. Reasons given were a) Iraq is a threat with its WMD's and b) Iraq has not disarmed as demanded. Both reasons have been shown to be bogus.

The goal was to remove a hostile nation from being a threat. Removing Saddam did part of that, but helping Iraq develop a representative government does a lot more. If that does emerge out of this election, then yes, it was worth sticking it out. I personally thought that once Saddam was caught our obligations were over.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

The article is a good example how to "spin". Democracy was not the justification given to go to war. Reasons given were a) Iraq is a threat with its WMD's and b) Iraq has not disarmed as demanded. Both reasons have been shown to be bogus.

The goal was to remove a hostile nation from being a threat. Removing Saddam did part of that, but helping Iraq develop a representative government does a lot more. If that does emerge out of this election, then yes, it was worth sticking it out. I personally thought that once Saddam was caught our obligations were over.

No, the rationale was to find the ellusive WMD's, period. To think that the whole thing wasn't just a ploy to go in and send a message is "dreamery" to quote what Bush might say.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Scenes from the Iraqi election. Notice the large numbers of women voters.

http://adamkeiper.blogs.com/comparevideo/files/Iraq_Election.wmv

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The question is Bush right, assumes that democracy in Iraq was Bush's primary goal in Iraq. However we know he sold the war to the American people not by stressing the benefits of a free Iraq...

Two thoughts:

It's not terribly relevant how we ended up there (unless you just want to have a historical argument). The real issue is what we do now.

What would you think if, hypothetically, Bush sold the US citizens the WMD story, knowing it to be false? And his real aim was to create a democracy in the center of the middle east? Supposing that it all worked out, and Iraq (eventually) became a functioning democracy with human rights, and women in bikinis and all that is good and right, would that end have justified those means?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Supposing that it all worked out, and Iraq (eventually) became a functioning democracy with human rights, and women in bikinis and all that is good and right, would that end have justified those means?

The problem is that these peoples culture and religion is not aiming for women in bikinis. You are making the same mistake many westerners do - you don't understand their culture.

There is a very great chance that the winners of the elections will be the religous shia parties - and they want to have islamic law implemented. The ironic thing is that SH regime was actually very secular. The people who very likely will win most influence do want a strict religous society. So the "freedom" thing might not be the outcome of the democratic process. So this will be interesting to watch, because if the Shia'a are allowed to they might just create an Iranian type of government (in a fully democratic process) and that would be kind of ironic.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

The article is a good example how to "spin".

I'm pretty sure the columnist wouldn't "spin" on Bush's behalf given that he's been consistently anti-Bush on everything. Read some of his other columns. He's never been a Bush fan, and he was very much against the war.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[jazzjumper 0]

Quote

See there's not that much dispute about how establishing democracy in Iraq being a good thing. Everyone agrees that would be wicked… thus there’s no dispute about Bush being right there… thus surely the writer can’t be talking about that.

Sure he can. The entire mainstream media here (and abroad from what I read in the British tabloids and picked up on Skyy news) said it would be a horrific failure.

Quote

Where people think Bush was wrong is with regard to whether or not establishing democracy had anything to do with why Bush wanted to go into Iraq; whether or not he communicated that thought process to his bosses, the public; and whether or not the cost in terms of the lives and limbs of coalition soldiers as well as the pure $$ amount was worth it.

Okay, first problem....Bush doesn't have bosses. He is the President of the US. He answers to the US citizens, but he was elected to do exactly what he is doing...and this is the give of a representative form of government (Federal Republic.) As someone who has been there 4 times since 9-11...the overwhelming majority of the people actually doing the work agree that this is the way to go, regardless of what anyone else prints or broadcasts.

Quote

I see lots of people saying Bush is wrong about those elements of the situation… elements this article fails to address. So yeah - Bush was right - democracy in Iraq would be cool to achieve… but that’s not exactly the point now is it... that's not what your countrymen are complaining about.

Again, you miss the point of the article. The author appears to be talking to the liberal press moreso that the liberal elite. If by point, you mean making the connection of WMDs (which has been done, just not in the quantities that the press is satisfied with). Remember, it wasn't that Bush was wrong...but everyone thought more would be found (and that still remains to be seen.) The facts are, he used WMDs against his own people (Kurds) on multiple occasions...and ignored 14 UN resolutions over a 10+ year period.

Quote

Now I'm not expressing a view on these points - just highlighting the fact that the article kinda glosses over them. In other words... the writer completely misses the point.

No, the it's the writer's point to make. It would appear that you are the one missing the point...or hadn't that even crossed your mind?

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[wmw999 2,447]

Nice post; perspective is a good thing. I'm still hopeful, but, well, we have to remember that the country has to end up with a shape that ITS PEOPLE want, not necessarily the one that we want.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

said it would be a horrific failure

It may well be. We're no where near being able to see one way or the other yet. Bush even accepts the fact that it may not work - we all hope it will though... so there's no dispute there. So that can't be what the article's about.

Quote

Bush doesn't have bosses

Established US constitutional doctrine would beg to differ. Your answer even mixes semantics – you say Bush is answerable to the people of the US… a boss is someone to whom you are answerable… thus you are (cumulatively) Bush’s boss.

Quote

the overwhelming majority of the people actually doing the work agree that this is the way to go, regardless of what anyone else prints or broadcasts.

That’s not where the big argument lies either. No one’s really saying that this way is not the “right and just” way to go. Sure – wading in and stopping the death over there is very commendable… few would disagree… but the big question is whether or not the US population think what we’re going to achieve is worth all the death and misery it’s causing – amongst our own troops alone.

Quote

The facts are, he used WMDs against his own people (Kurds) on multiple occasions...and ignored 14 UN resolutions over a 10+ year period.

No one's disputing that - no one's saying Bush is wrong when he says that's a bad thing that ought to be stopped... the only outstanding question is whether or not that is worth the lives and limbs of our brothers and sisters, to say nothing of the $$ amount.

Quote

No, the it's the writer's point to make. It would appear that you are the one missing the point

The article only address's points which are not really in much contention... thus sure - there's going to be a lot of support for the position that Bush is right about them - no one's arguing with him on those points.

The article fails to address points such as the cost of the war in human and $$ terms. That is the real outstanding question – that’s where people are saying Bush is wrong… not on the smaller details as this article talks about.

Is Bush right about that? Is an Iraq which chooses to institute Iranian stile Sharia law an outcome which the US citizenry consider to be "worth" the loss of life and limb on the scale we’ve seen together with the crippling damage to the US economy it has taken to achieve?

Again – I’m not purporting to know the answer to that last question – I’m just point out that to my mind THAT is the major outstanding question over GWB’s decision to go to war NOT whether or not it is possible to achieve the stated goals, or even if those goals are “right” and “just”. Everyone agrees that the choice is “just” – but not everyone agrees that its worth it… that simple distinction is something the article fails to consider.