Tomorrow marks the 2-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. And all over the US, anti-war lunatics will continue to stand on the wrong side of history by marking the date with more protests.
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit thinks this would be a good time for the antiwar protestors to issue a mass apology:
… a proper way of marking the date would be with a mass apology to the Iraqi people, and to George W. Bush, for taking the wrong side at a crucial moment in history.
Sackcloth, ashes, and signs reading: WE WERE WRONG, SORRY WE TRIED TO BLOCK ARAB DEMOCRACY, and WRONG ABOUT AFGHANISTAN, WRONG ABOUT IRAQ — DON’T LISTEN TO US NEXT TIME would be appropriate.
I’m not expecting that. But at least some people are marking the occasion in suitable fashion. It may be premature to gloat, but it’s not premature to point out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the “peace” movement, which has been apparent since the very beginning.
The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the “peace” movement?
Heh.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
“WE WERE WRONG, SORRY WE TRIED TO BLOCK ARAB DEMOCRACY, and WRONG ABOUT AFGHANISTAN, WRONG ABOUT IRAQ – DON’T LISTEN TO US NEXT TIME”
That argument might carry a little more water if those justifications for the war in Iraq had ever been mentioned. The fact is that Bush would not have received the authority to go to war if he hadn’t asserted that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.
And in the end, I’m not sure that $500 billion to install a muslim theocracy is such a great deal.
Have you read the Joint Congressional Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, passed by the House and Senate in October 2002?
Note, that of the 23 resolutions, only 9 of them mention WMDs. There were numerous other reasons that we justly went to war against Iraq, to include (from the resolution voted on—including former Presidential candidate John Kerry—by Congress authorizing force):
Freeing people from the brutal repression of a murderous thug like Sadaam is worth going to War for.
The reasons we went to war are clearly stated in the Congressional Resolution. And they are not limited to WMD or Iraq being an imminent threat to the US.
This is a just war, for a just cuase. The Left are the ones running out of water to carry for oppossing it.
Well, let’s see what happens- it’s awfully early for people like Reynolds to be taking a victory lap even as US casualties are growing at an increasing pace. There have been elections but to what effect? The installation of a religious government with ties to Iran? (I guess that would be better than civil war…)
As someone who was willing to be persuaded to the legitimacy of this war I am ecstatic about the toppling of a repressive dictator. But at what cost? Trading allies like France and Germany for Uzbekistan and Eritrea? It just seems like a perpetuation of the same sorry ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ policy that had us supporting the Mujahideen because they fought the Soviets or Hussein because he was fighting the Iranians. I would welcome a policy of spreading democracy that didn’t have us stomping out fires while we’re making friends with pyromaniacs.
Just from a crass calculation it is clear that this is not a sustainable policy to spread democracy. We aren’t going to expend so many lives and dollars in every corner of the world. That is just one reason why I feel that Bush’s passion for democratization is a bit hollow.
Indeed, if we were interested in spending 200-500 billion dollars to increase the quality of life for the greatest number of people in the world it seems like we would need to turn our eyes to Africa where millions are dying from malaria and other diseases.
Frankly, I still wonder what this war was all about.
Wrong about what exactly? Is Iraq a democracy now, or a theocracy-in-waiting? Have our troops stopped dying yet? Where are all those flowers our troops were supposed to be greeted with? Blocking Arab democracy – who supported Saddam all those years before we decided we didn’t support him?
In any event, last time I checked the only legal (and justifiable) war was one fought in self-defense. I don’t recall too many Iraqi troops landing in California. Do you suppose we may have invaded for other reasons?
For the record, I don’t think the Dems would have done any better, and they seem perfectly willing to go along with the whole mess. But our soldiers are dying, and I can’t see any real gain. It’s past time to ask some hard questions.
Honestly, try reading someone other than Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin for a change, like someone you don’t agree with. It might expand your horizons.
Ah, the first rule in blogging: always click the link.
My own look at the Resolution for the Authorization of Force found 11 of the 23 to be either directly WMD or September 11 related. So we can toss those out it seems…
Others stated the intention to ‘change regimes’- this required billions of dollars and thousands of lives and the creation of a new terror haven?
Others seem to be in retribution of the removal of inspectors in 1998 even though they had been reintroduced (then removed again by Bush).
Others were pure legalese.
The most outrageous and ironic rationale might be the claim (mentioned twice) that Iraq harbors terrorists. Too bad Bush rejected the opportunity to kill the worst of these Abu Musab Zarqawi before the war even started:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
(Though I’m fond of the claim that “it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region”)
On the whole you have to admit the resolution’s basis for war was the harboring of WMD’s and complicity in the attacks of September 11.
A mass apology from anti war protesters ? Two years after we were attacked and the borders are still wide open ? And the plan is to keep the offense out of here ? Can somebody explain to Dim Wits like me who can’t see how this makes sense ? Looks to me like the enemy has no problem getting “Boots ON The Ground” here . The only way it makes sense to me is if IT IS THE INTENTION to throw this country into war on it’s own soil . This war looks like a way to depopulate and globalize everything . there hasn’t been a war here for a long time and perhaps that’s the biggest reason the big boys packed their businesses and got the hell out of Dodge. I’m not so sure that the “protesters ” will be the ones “Eating Crow ” in the end . Many of the Christians who are responsible for getting Bush into office seem to be baffled and show a little ” Buyers Remorse ” these days . Did anybody notice that the President said nothing about the borders in his speech the other nite ? Did anybody notice that nobody in the press brought up the border problem with all the talk of war and national security ? Do you think perhaps they are told what they will or will not talk about ? And if they do not behave they will never be allowed back ? Am I overly suspicious ?
stgijk