A few questions I would like answered from the article. My personal opinion is
a little different.1) " Bush had genuine reason to believe that
action in Iraq would help defeat al-Qaida"Was al-Qaida in Iraq at the
time of the invasion? No. Was Saddam in league with al-Qaida at the time of
the invasion? No. Saddam was a secularist look up the definition. The
"Beards" with al-Qaida were fundamentalists look up the definition. Did
"action in Iraq" bring al-Qaida to Iraq? Could we say the secularists
were enemies of al-Qaida? When Saddam was deposed did this open up the door to
al-Qaida activity in Iraq?2) "Plenty of support.." Does he
mean a majority of the advisors in CIA, DofD, and other intelligence agencies or
does he mean that certain influential political leaders repeatedly asked for
validation of the views?3) "Is Iraq better off?" How about
the question is America better off? I have read some estimates that it will
take us until 2048 to pay off the borrowed money. What items are we ready to
cut from our budget to pay this debt?
If nothing else this editorial, like the one yesterday is very entertaining.
Polling across the country decisively suggests that waging war with Iraq was a
dumb thing to do and a mistake. With the passing of time the polling has become
even more one sided. "David Kay's words, Iraq under Saddam
was "More dangerous ... potentially than ... we thought ... before the
war." That is David Kay's words to save face as he had wrongfully
predicted There was vast amounts of WMD's and nuclear capability. He
eventually said is he thought that Iraq "potentially" could be a threat
Mr. Bennett knows full well that is not why we went to war. Don't look
now but Iran is further along than Iraq was so does Mr Bennett feel we should
spend another couple trillion dollars and thousands more lives. When does this
Middle East Cop idea stop.
First, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but that does not mean the US was
responsible for removing him power. Second, Iraq is not necessarily
better off. It is a far more violent and unstable society than before the
invation. Religious fundamentalists have far more influence now than under the
secular Baathist government.Third, the US invasion of Iraq
destabilized the region, allowed Iran to gain influence and created a decade of
violence and terror in Iraq, countless refugees flooding other nations.As a result of the US invasion, at least one hundred thousand Iraqis died.
Would they have been alive today without our invasion? Probably. Certainly,
the thousands of American troops killed in Iraq would be alive today. Bennett
is arguing a counterfactual here - that Saddam was so bad he would have done
horrible things without our invasion, ignoring the fact that without the
invasion, other options might have been uncovered and pursued that would have
resulted in Hussein leaving power without the deaths of a hundred thousand
Iraqis and thousands of Americans.
I don't think Bush is a bad guy, I think he beleived he was doing what was
right...but he was clearly wrong. After what we now know, can anyone honestly
say if they were to do it all over again they would? Using Bennett's logic
we should invade half of Africa, the Middle East and North Korea because of the
evil dictators controling these areas.
One of the biggest reasons not mentioned here for many of us who initially
supported the invasion was the mistaken belief that the ouster of Saddam and the
establishment of a viable democracy would set the stage for the spread of
democracy in the most troubled region of the world. Although I have not been
entirely disillusioned by the results, what we have seen so far does not justify
the cost in lives and gdp. This is in addition to the poor preparation and
execution of the after Saddam strategy. However, having said this, my conclusion
may change again in another ten years if viable democracies do eventually take
hold and the tyranny of dictatorships and theocracies diminished signifcantly.
In addition, I believe our troops, who where poorly led initially, adapted in an
unprecedented way and performed in an outstanding manner under very difficult
Those who supported it should have to pay for it. I would rather my tax dollars
go to healthcare, education and scientific research.
Robert Bennet's opinion echoes mine despite all the Pres Bush negative
rhetoric and deceptive short liner insults used against him in tody's
communicative world. Thank you Bennet for truth and clarity.
1. Bush lied, people died.2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11$2 TRILLION of unrestricted and un-funded spending left to the U.S.
taxpayers.That Iraqi OIL isn't paying for any of it like he said.So Big Oil $$$ won going in and coming out of it.Until Republicans
admit they made mistakes and followed a fool, they will continue to loose
Just when I was starting to like some of Robert Bennett’s comments and
views, he reverts to the old republican mantra of thinking you can fool all of
the people all of the time. First, he is ignoring the thousands of
American and Iraqi dead who are definitely not better off. And the thousands
of American and Iraqi families that are still suffering the loss of their kin.
And the thousands of wounded and disfigured, along with their families. Staying with America, the price of fuel and everything that keys on it,
is up because of the elimination of a world competitor of the oil companies.
How many American families have been destroyed by the bad economy that resulted.
How are the taxpayers being effected by the extravagant waste of a
private enterprise army? Along with the other scams to provide a bonanza for
unscrupulous American businessmen. Is al-Qaida really less of a
threat today? Are there fewer number of Iraqi being killed on a daily basis?
Is the prospects for peace better?
There is over 23,000 nuclear bombs in the world. I don't know how many bio.
or chemical things there is. All I can do is turn it over to God. There
won't be any one to save when the world is in a grave.