I received an email to recommend that congress censure President Bush.Rather than delete the email, I decided to offer an alternative point of view. First of all let me say that the sender of the email is someone that is near and dear to me. I hold her in high regard for her friendship and her intellect. Having said that, debate is vital to the health of our nation. In the tradition of Lincoln vs Douglas & Kennedy vs Nixon, I offer a view diametrically opposed to what those who favor censure have presented.
The war critics are guilty of one mistake that many writers & politicos make…a
lack of full disclosure. Many against the war are on the left politically, and are committed to the defeat of President Bush. If this IRAQ war had never happened, these people would have found another cause. This is not in any way an attempt to minimize passions on this issue, but most of these critics are not centrists. They are partisans. So let me engage in full disclosure by saying I am a partisan as well, a staunch supporter of the President. I would probably be voting for him no matter what. Having said that, here is my rebuttal to this woman’s email, devoid of any emotion, filled with only logical reasoning.
1) David Kay did say the statements that appear on the surface to support the anti-war crowd. However, those statements were not taken in their complete context. Mr. Kay has also said that Saddam Hussein was ACTIVELY TRYING to get weapons of mass destruction. The fact that he may not have succeeded was not for lack of effort. Mr. Kay
believed Saddam Hussein was a threat to world stability, which is why he joined President Bush’s commission concerning this issue. We do know that Saddam Hussein DID USE these weapons in the past. Therefore, if he had the chance to use them again, it is logical to think he would. He used poison gas on the Kurds, & he lobbed scud missiles at Israel. He invaded a sovereign nation of Kuwait, & set their nation on fire. He also murdered a million of his own people. Based on these facts alone, a preemptive strike
is justified. Other nations have used preemptive strikes (Israel in 1967), and on some occasions that should be seen as right. It would have been dangerous to wait for Hussein to acquire the weapons again, at which point the U.S. would be subject to blackmail.
2) President Bush has been called a liar. We are told that he lied so we
could go to war. That is a very serious charge, & I am a firm believer that
if someone is going to bring a charge on another human being’s integrity,
that charge must be substantiated. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush
deliberately lied. Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky. While that is
not as serious as an issue involving war, that is the definition of a lie.
George Bush Senior lied when he broke his “read my lips” no new taxes
pledge. Again, not as serious…but a lie nonetheless. IF…and I stress the
word IF…President Bush was given faulty intelligence information, it is
vital to find out why the information was flawed. It is also important to
understand that this was the same information Bill Clinton relied on (Tommy
Franks was appointed by Clinton), and that democrats on the Intelligence
committee had this exact same information. John Kerry had this information,
and he voted for the war. It is possible that President Bush, Bill Clinton &
John Kerry were all LIED TO…but that does not make them liars on this
issue. It is also possible that noone lied to anyone, but that the flawed
intelligence was an HONEST MISTAKE. A colossal mistake, but again that does
not mean anyone lied.
3) I keep using the word possible, because we do not even know that a
mistake even occurred. We have not found WMD YET. That does not mean WMD
does not exist, but that we have not found them YET. We may never find them,
but that does not mean they did not exist. It is POSSIBLE THE INFORMATION
THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED WAS CORRECT, & THAT HUSSEIN EFFECTIVELY HID THE WEAPONS. IT IS NOT EASY TO FIND SOMETHING IN A WHOLE COUNTRY THAT COULD FIT IN THE SIZE OF THE HOLE HUSSEIN WAS FOUND IN.
3 1/2) A theological argument…I cannot prove God exists. I take it on
faith. The atheists cannot prove God does not exist. Now I am NOT implying
that the President be taken on blind faith, but it is not possible to say he
lied just because we have not seen the evidence YET. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN
THAT THE WEAPONS DID NOT EXIST.
4) If Hussein had no WMD, why did he keep kicking inspectors out? Perhaps he
wanted the world to THINK he was more powerful than he really was. This is a
justification for removing him, since if we act based on a perception he
gives us, we should not feel bad when we act. If this scenario is true,
HUSSEIN LIED, NOT President Bush. A good parallel to this involves suicide
bombers. If a group takes responsibility for a terrorist act such as a
suicide bombing that they actually did NOT commit, should they be punished
for merely SAYING they did? ABSOLUTELY. Confessing to a violent crime is an
attempt at intimidation, and that can only be countered with force that
removes such behavior.
5) Saddam violated Rule 1441. Rule 1441 was NOT about inspections, as Colin
Powell pointed out. It was about the disarmament of IRAQ. When sanctions
were eased under the “oil for food” program, Saddam did NOT use the oil
revenues for food. This has been proven. That was a violation of Rule 1441,
which again justifies invasion.
6) Now I will offer an argument that most politicians will not have the guts
to argue, not even republican politicians. WMD as an issue is IRRELEVANT.
Did Saddam have WMD? Who cares? I honestly do not. He was a ruthless madman
who killed many people. He invaded sovereign nations. He was a threat to
world stability based on his actions during the Gulf War. HE REPEATEDLY
DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA, PROMISING THE MOTHER OF ALL BATTLES. For those who think he was only bluffing, DO WE HAVE TO WAIT TO BE ATTACKED?
7) The world is better off with Hussein captured. The Iraqi people are free.
The fact that the news keeps showing how upset the Iraqis are with the USA
is a one-sided misrepresentation. The Iraqis do not want Hussein back. Most
Iraqis worship at the altar of American freedom fighters, and they should.
Libya’s Khadafi decided to try and become “normal” after the war. This was
not because of years of negotiation, but because he saw the handwriting on
the wall. Iran & Syria are getting nervous. When words are backed by
actions, words have meaning. President Bush’s words & actions have our
enemies nervous. That is a fabulous aftereffect in terms of a deterrent.
8 ) The President has an OBLIGATION to protect the USA. That means whether it
be Bin Laden or Hussein, anyone who succeeds in attacking America (Bin
Laden) or EVEN TALKS ABOUT IT (Hussein) is a target.
9) Move-on.org–whenever reading an article, always look at the SOURCE. I
disclosed my partisan affiliation. Moveon.org is a left wing organization
that has compared Bush to Adolf Hitler. As the son of a holocaust survivor,
I find that beyond offensive. While it may seem unfair to link everone who
supports an organization to that organization’s beliefs, most of
Moveon.org’s supporters HAVE A PERSONAL HATRED FOR PRESIDENT BUSH THAT GOES BEYOND RATIONAL DEBATE (read the website for evidence of this).
10) My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones. I cannot
begin to imagine their pain. I have a cousin who was separated from his
family for over a year due to his HONORABLE SERVICE IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.
He just came back home . The men & women in our military are heroes, and
they deserve to be treated as such. HOWEVER, SERVICE IN THE MILITARY IS
VOLUNTARY. As awful as it is that anti-war critics’ friends and family (and my cousin) are/were in harms way, THEY MADE A CHOICE TO SERVE. I choose not to serve in the
military out of selfishness. Having said that, I am at least decent enough
to thank the people who serve voluntarily so I can live my self-indulgent
American kick-back life.
There are 3 reasons why people might oppose this war:
1) Some people oppose ALL WAR. Singing Kumbaya does not work when people
want to kill you. As Tommy Franks said a couple weeks ago “WAR IS BAD…BUT
SOMETIMES NOT GOING TO WAR IS WORSE.”
2) Some people simply oppose ANYTHING BUSH SUPPORTS. When winning an
election becomes more important than supporting a just cause, we have lost
our soul as a nation.
3) Some people simply opposed this war on principle. I respect that. Some were against it, I was in favor of it. I will not question their integrity, they should never question mine. However, many have questioned President Bush’s integrity. I THINK IT IS VERY REASONABLE TO STATE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH ACTED ON PRINCIPLE, AND TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS AN ATTACK ON HIM AS A HUMAN BEING. I SUPPORTED THE WAR, AND I DID SO BASED ON MY CONSCIENCE. I BELIEVE PRESIDENT BUSH DID AS WELL, THE SAME WAY MANY OPPOSED THE WAR BASED ON CONSCIENCE.
When the history books are written, long after we are all gone, I will go to
my grave knowing that President Bush did the right thing. The war was just,
decent & morally right on every level of humanity. I am AGAINST a censure of
President Bush. I am also against the censure of Moveon.org, because as
disgusting as their comments are, free speech requires I accept their right
to spew venom. Voltaire once said “I do not approve of what you say, but I
will defend to the death your right to say it.” I am diametrically opposed
to most anti-war critics politically, but their right to free speech was exercised
appropriately, & my response was appropriate in kind. For those who believe
the war was right, do not recommend censure. Send Mr. Bush a simple, short
thank you note over the internet for helping keep America free & safe in the
tradition of George Washington, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK &
Thank you Mr. President. Thank you for making the world a better place to
live. May God bless you, your family, the men & women in our military, their
families, & free people everywhere. May God bless the USA.