Don’t deny: Whoever says, ‘Get out of Iraq now,’ is in agreement with terrorists

Tue, 10/17/2006 - 4:05pm
By: Letters to the ...

In response to Mr. Williams’ charge that I was “besmirching the sacrifices of young Democrats,” I was careful in my original letter to say that certain critics of the Bush administration “unwittingly” and “unknowingly” give aid and support to terrorists by their criticisms. I did not impugn their patriotism, although some of them are certainly deserving of that charge.

To say that I was condemning all Democrats, including soldiers of past wars (!), is a bit hysterical and, frankly, tiresome. Democrats spend more time complaining about real or imagined criticisms and insults than on debating the merits of an argument.

Given the Democratic tendency to view people primarily as victims, this should not be surprising. They have become the party of permanent grievance. But this attitude does little to solve problems and instead is more focused on improving self-esteem while demonizing political opponents.

So, back to my original argument, which was that when what you are saying is the same as what the terrorists are saying, you are in agreement with them. This is logically unassailable.

When the terrorists say “get out of Iraq” and critics, whether on the right or left, say the same thing, they are in agreement. The reasons behind their statement may be different, but the result is the same.

And when that happens, the terrorists are winning. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.

But I have a question for Mr. Williams: Why do you think President Bush took us to war in Iraq? You say the official reasoning was contrived and manufactured, failing to mention that one of the reasons given was that Iraq had violated 17 UN resolutions and had to be held responsible for that. Okay, so what is the reason?

If you say for “oil” or “Halliburton,” well, you are simply not a serious person and you assume President Bush is a moral monster and evil to the core. If you can make a reasoned argument and base it on real evidence, I will listen. But I have heard few such emanations from Bush’s critics.

And what is this fascination with Karl Rove? This is the kind of paranoid raving that makes it hard for me to take seriously a large percentage of Bush’s critics on both sides of the political spectrum. They start throwing around terms like “Neocons” and “Karl Rove” and “Halliburton” and focus more on unprovable conspiracies than on the facts at hand.

I do not wish to rehash the argument for going to war. Critics selectively remember what the Bush administration said and did not say leading up to the war (there was never a claim of Saddam and al Qaeda being connected during that period).

While I supported the decision at the time, I think in hindsight it may have been the wrong one. I don’t think anyone really anticipated the extent of the enemy’s depravity and his willingness to kill both our soldiers and innocent Iraqis to accomplish their goal of re-taking Iraq. But hindsight is 20/20.

In the meantime, it is irresponsible and dangerous to constantly attack our president and attribute to him the basest of motivations for going to war. I guarantee that such statements increase the danger for our troops in Iraq by demonstrating to our enemy that their attacks are weakening our country’s resolve, which in turn encourages them to attack more.

Of course, we live in a democracy and so cannot force people to act and speak responsibly. We have already seen how we are willing to endanger our troops and abandon our allies to a common enemy in the case of Vietnam. We may do so again in Iraq as a direct result of the cacophony of ill-considered criticism.

And the world will be happy because they like nothing better than to see the U.S. laid low. Since worldwide esteem is your goal, Mr. Williams, perhaps that indeed is the way to go.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Wed, 10/18/2006 - 5:39pm.

While I hesitate to enter into a "discussion" with one more knowledgeable than I, the following was lifted from a CNN article of September 26, 2002. If we are going to have "discussions" about substantive issues, let's at least keep the facts straight.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's national security adviser Wednesday said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in chemical weapons development -- information she said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism.

I believe this establishes a claim linking Saddam to al Qaeda before the onset of hostilities.


Submitted by AMDG on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 9:56am.

Okay, so you found one instance of Condi Rice saying that terrorists reported being sheltered in Baghdad BEFORE the launch of the war. I hate to nitpick, but does that prove that the Bush administration's publicly stated rationale for war was that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11? The issue of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda was certainly afloat during the pre-war period, so it is not unusual that Rice would be asked about this issue or make this statement. And, I believe, these assertions have turned out to be true. But saying al Qaeda was in Iraq at some point in time and using that fact as an official reason for going to war are 2 different things. The primary reasons I remember for going to war were: WMD, Iraq's multiple violations of UN resolutions, Iraq's refusal to comply with the terms of the cease fire it signed in 1992, and the new environment created by 9/11, one in which we could no longer afford to let a rogue nation like Iraq string us along and possibly provide terrorists with shelter and weaponry.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 10/18/2006 - 6:21pm.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

The White House

Ex-Powell Aide Says Saddam-Weapons Threat Was Overstated

Feb. 4, 2004

(CBS) In February, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a surprising admission.

He told The Washington Post that he doesn't know whether he would have recommended the invasion of Iraq if he had been told at the time that there were no stockpiles of banned weapons.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.


Submitted by AMDG on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 10:04am.

Okay, sorry bad_ptc, but your posting proves nothing. EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMD, and since Iraq would not agree to a proper inspection, and had kicked out inspectors in 1998, it was impossible to disprove. Obviously, if we had known for certain Iraq had no WMD (we did find stores of chemical weapons, BTW), we wouldn't have attacked because that was a main jusitification for the war. But we were wrong, we made a mistake, a mistake that could have been avoided if Iraq didn't behave like a criminal state, which it was. As for your quote from the Sept. 11 commission, it assumes one of Bush's main justifications was collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. That is not the case. True, the administration acknowledge al Qaeda agents were in Iraq, but was at pains to exclude that linkage from its official, public justification for the war.
But, when you believe that the Bush administration lied to get us into the war for [insert insipid conspiracy here], there's nothing I nor anyone can say to dissuade you.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 2:54pm.

I don’t think Bush lied intentionally, what I think is, between Congress castrating the intelligence agencies and after 10+ years of budget fighting between the CIA, NAS, DoD, NSA and FBI he couldn’t be provided with accurate information if his rear depended on it. Go figure.

Bush was lead down this path by those that had something to gain. Both foreign and domestic.

Just look at what happened when Wilson gave his report on Niger.

Republicans Questioning Bush's Iraq Policies

Now we have, not you personally, republicans raising the “we need to get out of Iraq” bla bla bla to gain votes in the November races.

The current administration has done such an extremely bad job of selling this “war” to the American people that Rep. And Dem. are both using it as a stumping issue.

What ever happened to the “War on Drugs” campaign? Did someone finally realize that after a few billion dollars and higher reported drug use that we weren’t getting any bang for our buck?

What is the end result of this war supposed to be? When all is said and done, what are we, America, supposed to get out of it?

Were losing our men and women for what? Were spending 13 BILLION a month for what? Lower gas prices, I don’t think so.


Submitted by AMDG on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 3:52pm.

Bad_ptc, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I think it's a bit uncharitable to say Bush was led down a path by those who had something to gain. It implies he's a dolt and is a little too cynical for my tastes. Besides, what did anybody have to gain by a war in Iraq? The only reason to go would be to secure our country from attacks funded by or supplied by Iraq's rogue, sociopathic government.

I agree especially with your point that this administration has done a bad job selling this war. If Bush had 1/10th the eloquence of Blair, it would help a lot.

But in any case, I still believe that the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq have received encouragement from the criticism of Bush in the U.S. I recall reading about and hearing about them stating, matter-of-factly, that they are lodging these attacks specifically to reduce our willingness to stay, and when they see increased calls for withdrawal, know they are succeeding.

But, perhaps this is the price paid for a bad strategy. It should be a lesson to future leaders about the importance of prudence and the risk of getting into certain kinds of conflicts.

But, again, when I think about it, Saddam had to go. He was too much of a risk to let hang around and the UN had showed itself unwilling to enforce its own resolutions.

Hell, I don't know. I think I can only pray anymore!

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 9:09am.

How do you embed a link in these posts?


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 10/19/2006 - 2:15pm.

Jeff, cleck Here to see the help screen.


Submitted by OldSchoolFootball on Wed, 10/18/2006 - 6:40pm.

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
From the December 29, 2003 / January 5, 2004 issue: Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
by Stephen F. Hayes
12/29/2003, Volume 009, Issue 16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline

But my favorite of all time is this site, which shows what a wonderful leader Sadam was:

http://husseinandterror.com/

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Wed, 10/18/2006 - 7:56pm.

my own personal favorite (and let me make clear that this represents nothing more that the info contained therein)

http://www.konformist.com/911/osama-bush.htm

Now we can continue down this primrose path forever, each claiming that they know the REAL truth because they read it in this or that website. Quotes taken from PUBLIC press presentations are easily verifiable. Recording history is one thing, let us not rewrite it to conform to our preconceived notions or interpretations


Submitted by OldSchoolFootball on Tue, 10/17/2006 - 9:59pm.

I concur Trey Hoffman.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.