We seek democracy in that region for the same reasons we spent decades working for democracy in Europe -- because freedom is the only reliable path to peace. If the Middle East continues to simmer in anger and resentment and hopelessness, caught in a cycle of repression and radicalism, it will produce terrorism of even greater audacity and destructive power. But if the peoples of that region gain the right of self-government, and find hopes to replace their hatreds, then the security of all free nations will be strengthened. We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability. We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others. And so, with confidence and resolve, we will stand for freedom across the broader Middle East.Indeed, for the very reasons the president outlined above, the spread of freedom and democracy in the Islamic world and the Middle East is the only way terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism will ever be defeated. The oppression that had existed there bred resentment and hatred, and that hatred fueled the emergence of Islamic terrorism. What the president's narrow-minded critics can't seem to understand is that taking away that oppression and the hatred and resentment which are it's fruits are the only way to defeat terrorism.
The terrorists understand this, for if democracy didn't spell the doom of terrorism why are Zarqawi and all his thugs fighting so hard and desperately to defeat it's creation in Iraq? It's because replacing the region's most brutal and tyrannical regime with a stable democracy will embolden others in the region to seek their freedoms, and subsequently the hatred and resentment that has so permeated the region will be gone forever, and so too will the terrorism. This is why our efforts in Iraq are not a diversion away from the war on terror as the president's critics like to claim, but rather the central task in winning it.
Simply put, freedom and democracy are the only way to defeat terrorism and bring about peace, I just wish the president's critics understood this.
Hat Tip: Powerline
I don't think there is a living soul who doesn't understand that freedom from oppression could ultimately end terrorism.
ReplyDeleteLying to start a war will never be accepted as a means to bring freedom to anyone. If the cause is so "noble and just," why not tell the truth to the American people?
We don't need to beat around the bush (no pun intended) anymore. The president was dead set on war in Iraq and deceived Americans to get his war.
And you'd think, that if you were so damned determined to go to war, you'd be smart enough to have a comprehensive plan for the aftermath of your war. Something like...ensuring large caches of nuclear-grade explosives were guarded, guarding the borders from foreign rebels who don't consider you a "liberator," and not allowing the country to slip into lawlessness.
But no, not this President, he thought we'd suffer few casualties, be welcomed with smiles and he could make the whole thing into a nice victory photo-op on a carrier in a flight suit.
We'll be picking up his mess for the next decade at least...
I liked his father, it's a shame. I've never wanted to feel like my Dad would do a better job at leading the country. But that is where we are at.
Rob, lying is willfully and knowingly deceiving someone for personal gain. I know you liberals enjoy claiming that the president lied to get us to go to war, but the facts simply don’t bear that out. What the president did was go off the best intelligence available to him and make a decision from there. Every intelligence agency in the world, including those of the French, Russians, and Germans, said that Saddam had WMD as well. If you are going to accuse the president of being a liar than you are also going to have to accuse everyone else, including many in your party such as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards who said the same things the president was saying liars as well.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, how can you accuse the president of lying about weapons in Iraq out of one side of your mouth and than criticize him for not securing those very same weapons out of the other side? Either stick to your claim that the president lied and that there were no weapons there or criticize him for not securing those weapons once we were there. You can’t have it both ways.
In regards to the poor planning, we are fighting a war there to rid the country and the region of those who sow hate and murder in order to stay in power. Unfortunately this task is trying and bloody, and the fact that in only two years Iraq has gone from being ruled by the region’s most brutal dictator to having a democratically elected government about to write a permanent constitution for that country contradicts the assertion that it is “a mess”. The small minority of fanatics in that country who can’t prosper in a stable democracy are inevitably going to fight desperately and cruelly to prevent Iraq from ever becoming one, and in turn you are going to have casualties, no matter how good the planning is. If you and your liberal friends have some magic formula that can alter this reality than by all means share it with us.
And finally, though Bush the elder is an admirable man and an honored statesmen he was no where near the leader his son has become. Bush 41 was a manager, this Bush is a leader. The fact that so many liberals lament the fact that Bush 43 is not his father is very heartening, for these are the same liberals who ranted at President Reagan for eight years. If the president is irritating you guys than he is doing exactly what he should be doing.
A true Republican: use semantics.
ReplyDeleteWMD: Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons.
Nuclear-grade explosives: Explosives which constitute a small part of the necessary ingredients to construct WMD.
In the case of these explosives, they were documented and under lock and key of the I.A.E.A until the invasion left them unguarded and "lootable."
Your vague use of "weapons" to mean anything was very "Sean Hannity." Nice try, but please.
There is quite a difference between saying Saddam was going to acquire a nuclear bomb "soon" (Dick Cheney) and the truth at the time. There was no concensus on Iraq's weapons. And had the U.N. inspectors been allowed to actually do their job for more than the time it took to amass (not quite enough) troops in Kuwait, they would have found the same thing we found: nothing.
If you asked me my age and I said, "near 40," am I lying? Not technically, since I'm 28, it's all relative. But what was my intention? My intention was to make you believe I was close to 40.
You say tomato, I say Bush "knowingly decieved" the American people by semantically connecting Iraq to 9/11, pushing the completely baseless nuclear myth, and hyping questionable intelligence. And yes, many in the American intelligence community questioned the Bush administration's use of intelligence. I don't see why this is an argument. Can you honestly look in the mirror and say the American people were not deceived? I don't go around telling people Clinton never got BJ's in the oval office. The facts are there, just behind the spin. It's time to stop pretend your beloved hero president is some bastion of truth. The intent was to deceive and scare.
I am very proud of what we have accomplished in Iraq despite the blundering of Bush 43. Planning a war for years without ever considering the aftermath is the most naive use of American force there is. I'm also very proud of the Iraqi people for being incredibly resilient in such turbulent times. I would love for nothing more than to see a Democracy in Iraq in the next decade. The task is "trying and bloody" because of the abyssmal post-war planning and naivete about the strength of pissed off Sunnis.
But the ends do not justify the means. Just tell the truth...we deserve that. By "mess," I did not mean Iraq...it will get better eventually. I meant the foreign policy mess.
And as for Reagan, well, time has shown that funding, arming, and training the Afghani Mujahadeen in guerilla warfare techniques during the 1980's seems to have been a bit of a ghost we still can't shake.