I’m not a supporter of President Bush as he performs today, but Bush critics of the Iraq war cannot go unanswered; unfortunately too many people believe a revisionist history.
Saudi Arabia is a theocratic dictatorship but unfortunately those living there are comfortable with a Wahabi Islamic country that is the bane of western democracies. However, Saudi supplies America with a major portion of needed oil and in return depends on America for its defense; such are the geopolitical realities in the world today. Should we discontinue ties to Saudi Arabia, which is like cutting off our nose to spite our face? This is a close call; but we may not be able to do anything else but support them until we achieve oil independence, something not likely in the foreseeable future thanks to environmentalists.
The ‘Bush lied’ mantra is popular among Democrats and anti-government liberals. However the facts show that the Clinton administration and Democrats at the time all believed Saddam Hussein and Iraq were threats to the United States and to world peace (a simple Google search will bear this out). Furthermore, literally all intelligence agencies around the world believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was seeking to develop nuclear arms at the time a decision was made to go to war against Saddam. Saddam had indeed used chemical weapons against his own people; why should we not have believed he still had such weapons? Conveniently, Bush critics forget the Clinton years and indeed what they said publicly at the time.
We should also remember that with the same information available to Bush, Congress passed a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Most Democrats, including those prominent Democrats who seek their party’s presidential nomination and criticize the war now, voted for the resolution. If as Democrats now say, “they were misled”, then everyone, not only the administration, but the world’s intelligence agencies, were also “misled” by the popular wisdom at the time. Can war critics say ‘Monday morning quarterback’?
Another nonsensical criticism by Democrats is that ‘”Bush failed to arm and protect US soldiers” sent to Iraq. However, our military were armed with the best materiel available at the time. The enemy keeps changing its war strategy and weapons so the US military must also. The fact that we constantly make revisions to armaments, like adding more armor to Humvies, should be looked at with praise not condemnation. Moreover, Bush does not personally select the Military equipment; how can the condition of the military be regarded as a ‘Bush failing’, which of course was not a failing on any level.
War is expensive, not just in dollars but human lives; would critics like to add up the cost to our country of a single event – the destruction of the twin towers in New York, the Pentagon, etc. -, and balance that cost and possible future costs against the cost being sustained now? If we don’t deal with Islam abroad, we will have to deal, and suffer, Islam at home. Don’t be misled by your passion against Bush, this is a real world wide war against Islamic terror.
If Democrats and other war critics were not so blinded by their hatred of George Bush, they might be able to see the truth.