Black Conservative on Iraq
So Joseph C Phillips claims to want an Honest Debate About The War. This "honest debate" begins with:
Debate is good! Dissent may not be the province of America alone, but the right to dissent freely without repercussion is as American as apple pie. However, if our discourse is to bear fruit it must be responsible. We can’t have an honest debate so long as the issues are clouded with hysteria more appropriate to Hollywood science fiction.
Sounds good so far, even with the obligatory "Apple Pie" comment. I mean he's black, he could have said American as "Jim Crow" or something equally culturally relevant, but hey, It's Joseph. Next he has this:
Our incursion into Iraq was motivated by the belief that democracy and freedom as opposed to tyranny and instability would lay a foundation of peace that would lead to victory in the war on terror. That is it in a nutshell and those reasons have not changed. To their credit, more than a few Democrats supported the president. In 2002, Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) proclaimed, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president’s approaching this in the right fashion.” That same year on NBC’s Meet The Press, New York Senator Hillary Clinton announced: “I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long-term interests of our national security …”
In an article in Time magazine, former President Bill Clinton articulates rather clearly that in the aftermath of 9/11/01, President Bush had a responsibility to make certain Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons didn’t fall into the hands of terrorists. If our president lied then there is a long list of Democratic leaders including Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy that also lied.
Wow. Two problems here. I'll deal with the second one first. Any parent would recognize the "if Bush lied so did..." argument as the ones that children who are fighting use. "He did it first!!!." Yes, folks, this is the level of argument that we're dealing with. But the first one is all "Apple Pie." This was not sold on Democracy and Freedom. I guess Phillip has had his head in the sand for so long that all the memos and news reports have completely passed him by. But let's take Phillip at his word. If the ultimate purpose for going into Iraq was to win the "War on Terror." then lets look at the facts "on the ground."
Saddam Hussein, a CIA stool, was put into power in Iraq in order to act as a "counter" to Iran. Saddam Hussien was disliked by the very leadership of Al-Q, the current ever present boogy monster, who wrote, as quoted in many publications. Hussein, the "tyrant" that he was had a Secular, modern country, where he kept the feuds between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds under control. We may disagree with the methods of that control, but none the less, Iraq was not a safe place for terrorists and Hussein had no love for or had no love from so called 'terrorists." Furthermore, while the country was able to make money off it's oil, Saddam and his peoples had no economic incentive to aid terrorists. Now after 15 years of "no fly zones" and surgical precise bombs, Shock and Awe the country is rife with "insurgents."
The country is about to be split into three parts, There are fake news reports in Arab newspapers (which is really funny given how US press likes to point out that other countries reported things in state run media as if State run means "lie") and A-Q operatives have continued to bomb almost at will all over Europe.
By any measure, Iraq today is more a terrorist heaven than it was at any point prior to Gulf War 1. This isn't Ideology speaking. These are the "facts on the ground."
I'm not going to begin to defend Kerry et.al because I have no interest in defending democrats who don't have the balls to stand up for principle. Any shots they take from conservatives over thier statements and voting records are fair game, but that does not detract from the fact that Yes, the propaganda used to get the American people behind the war was either fabricated or conveniently "not mentioned." or in the case of Colin Powel's presentation to the UN flat out wrong (which Powell has admitted on national TV).
Lastly Phillips states:
Continuing to stay disengaged from the political debate plays into the hands of the terrorists, who have determined that the battle they must win is the public relations battle here in the United States. They believe Americans are weak and do not have the stomach for war. If they can wear down American political resolve, victory will be theirs. One of the keys to our ultimate victory, then, is that we maintain the support of the American people.
I swear that novel thinking must not be a part of the Black Conservative repertoir as this statement makes little sense. Most Americans have no problem with the US activities in Afghanistan because they believe that Osama Bin Ladin is there (or thereabouts) and that he is directly responsible (In terms of organization) for 9-11. However, the people are seeing Iraq for the money grab and lies that it is. Therefore it is a lie to say that Americans (or most anyone else) has a problem with war per se. However, when you say "they have X tonnes of WMD" and then can't show it, the people think you're dishonest and supposedly the "honest Abe" idea of American fairness (however false it is) comes into question globally and the main beneficiaries being Kellogg Brown and Root and other Halliburton, no bid contract holding companies paying Africans they import into Iraq $0.50 an hour (You'll note Phillips has nothing to say about that little point). No Phillip is wrong and needs to be honest with himself about it. That would be an interesting debate:
"Why Do I believe these white folks?"
"Oh they love me and pay me!!"