Contrition Accepted Here
Many people, having opposed the war in Iraq, were understandably embarrassed by the jubilation of Iraqis voting in free elections. Rather than admit a lack of moral clarity, they tell us that the war was about "WMDs period" - and now that we know Iraq wasn't a threat, the war was necessarily a mistake. This is a just rewriting history. In the public debate before the invasion, the 'liberating the oppressed' argument was paramount in convincing people like me. Moreover the Bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq explicitly proclaimed this as an objective and Bush dwelled on it in his 2003 state of the union. And linked on Normblog is a 2002 address Bush gave:
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.President Bush Outlines Iraqi ThreatIt's time for all people of conscience who opposed the war to fess up. You are welcome to do it in my comment section below ;-)
- sheikh X at 10:40 AM
3 Comments:
well, its a little disappointing - the post has been up for almost an hour now, and nobody is coming forward. it makes me wonder. sometimes i think that perhaps howard dean and jon stewart don't read this blog quite as regularly one would think.
can i fess up to being confused about the war? in a room of angry liberals, i'd happily defend it. their naive, unequivocal reliance and endorsement of the position of the un and europe repulsed me.
but,in a room of staunch supporters, i'd give a litany of failures by the bush administration in diplomacy, and pre and post-war planning and intelligence. it was all a shade of gray...and this has been a source of guilt and confusion, and now you go ahead and rub it in...on the other hand, maybe, as a citizen (rather than a leader) it isn't so bad to see things in a shade of gray...maybe the real question is why were you so damn sure?
i see your point - actually i wasn't so sure. before the invasion i felt that ridding iraq of saddam was a worthy goal, but i wasn't convinced that bush was the right leader to do it. my concern was that he'd turn iraq into a bloodbath. it was alleviated when before the invasion they tried missile strikes against locations where saddam and sons were thought to be. that reassured me that the US administration genuinely wanted to use the minimum force necessary.
however i was sure that regime change was a good idea. i've heard a lot of totalitarian/authoritarian government mouthpieces explaining that democracy doesn't suit all cultures. but i've never heard some one whose spent time in prison for expressing their opinion say the same.
Post a Comment
<< Home