Astonishing
Prime Minister Tony Blair is 'astonished'!
Prime Minister Blair is exactly right in this, and I've written about this before. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, there was no politically expedient way to go about removing the Hussein Regime from power. To do so would have required widespread international support, which was impossible (as we saw) because the United Nations is controlled by status quo bureaucrats, and the General Assembly is dominated by dictators who don't want to set a precedent for enforcing international law lest they be held accountable for their own flagrant violations. In spite of numerous Security Council resolutions issuing strong language and clear threats of intervention, we now know that the French and the Russians had no intention of holding Hussein accountable due to the overwhelming extent of their financial involvement with that regime.
After 9/11, the entire situation changed. Because America, and indeed the entire free world, had been attacked in such a large and horrendous manner, we no longer needed the consent of the United Nations to defend ourselves. The United Nations, a body inaugurated for the sole purpose of maintaining freedom, fundamental human rights, and peace, had ignored its mission one too many times. Because that organization had literally looked the other way, and had made no effort to enforce international law, their legitimacy as the world's de facto governing body took a massive hit, and that left the duty of defending freedom to the United States (at that time and to this day the world's only military superpower) and its allies.
Because a war against terrorism had been inaugurated, Iraq was the appropriate nation to make an example of. Nebulous ties with al Qaeda (an intentionally nebulous organization) aside, Saddam Hussein had publically supported terrorist groups for years. He was in violation of (I believe) sixteen UNSC resolutions at the time of 9/11, seventeen by the time Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced. Hussein's Iraq was the quintessential terrorist regime, and it was the quintessential violator of international law. It was a crucial safe haven for terrorists then, and it is a crucial front in the international war against terrorism now.
Furthermore, there was no "rush to war", and neither President Bush nor Prime Minister blair "lied" about the details. A lie is an intentional statement of falsehood, preceded by knowledge to the contrary. If President Bush didn't believe that the Iraqi government had illegal weapons (which have actually been found, but not in the numbers expected), then why did American troops go into combat fully trained and fully equipped for the possibility of biological and chemical attacks? If President Bush lied (meaning, if he knew beforehand that there were no illegal weapons, and went in anyway), then why did Coalition forces spend two years looking for those same illegal weapons? You know, the ones that Saddam Hussein never demonstrated that he'd completely eradicated? (By the way, full and public disclosure and supervision was a requirement of the treaty that ended Gulf War I, and several of the following UNSC resolutions.)
If President Bush "rushed to war" on his own accord, then why was there extensive debate in the House and Senate? Why was there extensive debate, lasting from October or November of 2002 until March of 2003, in the United Nations? And if it was obvious that Saddam Hussein didn't have these illegal weapons, then why wasn't anyone saying that at the time, not even the intelligence services of dissenting nations such as France, Russia, and China?
The answer, of course, is that the charges made by leftists against President Bush are false, uninformed, or downright intellectually dishonest, just like the demands for a "time table" or a "plan to win the peace" or an "exit strategy". Some of Bush's detractors are unable, through lack of education on the subject, to comprehend the situation; others are unwilling to do so; others comprehend the situation, and make up the same lies anyway.
Kudos to Prime Minister Blair for having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this Downing Street Memoranda hoopla, and kudos to the Honorable Mr. Bush, President of the finest nation on the planet and leader of the free world, for once again explaining the situation last night to the American people.
LONDON — Prime Minister Tony Blair firmly denied Wednesday that the Bush administration signaled just months after Sept. 11 that a decision was made to invade Iraq, saying he was "astonished" by claims that leaked secret memos suggested the U.S. was rushing to war.
In an interview with The Associated Press a day after President Bush delivered a televised defense of the war in Iraq, Blair said defeating the insurgency was crucial to protecting security worldwide, and joined Bush in linking the war with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"What happened for me after Sept. 11 is that the balance of risk changed," said Blair, interviewed on the stone terrace overlooking the garden of his No. 10 Downing Street offices, where policy meetings on Iraq were held before the invasion.
After Sept. 11, it was necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years," he said. "I took the view that if these people ever got hold of nuclear, chemical or biological capability, they would probably use it."
Prime Minister Blair is exactly right in this, and I've written about this before. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, there was no politically expedient way to go about removing the Hussein Regime from power. To do so would have required widespread international support, which was impossible (as we saw) because the United Nations is controlled by status quo bureaucrats, and the General Assembly is dominated by dictators who don't want to set a precedent for enforcing international law lest they be held accountable for their own flagrant violations. In spite of numerous Security Council resolutions issuing strong language and clear threats of intervention, we now know that the French and the Russians had no intention of holding Hussein accountable due to the overwhelming extent of their financial involvement with that regime.
After 9/11, the entire situation changed. Because America, and indeed the entire free world, had been attacked in such a large and horrendous manner, we no longer needed the consent of the United Nations to defend ourselves. The United Nations, a body inaugurated for the sole purpose of maintaining freedom, fundamental human rights, and peace, had ignored its mission one too many times. Because that organization had literally looked the other way, and had made no effort to enforce international law, their legitimacy as the world's de facto governing body took a massive hit, and that left the duty of defending freedom to the United States (at that time and to this day the world's only military superpower) and its allies.
Because a war against terrorism had been inaugurated, Iraq was the appropriate nation to make an example of. Nebulous ties with al Qaeda (an intentionally nebulous organization) aside, Saddam Hussein had publically supported terrorist groups for years. He was in violation of (I believe) sixteen UNSC resolutions at the time of 9/11, seventeen by the time Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced. Hussein's Iraq was the quintessential terrorist regime, and it was the quintessential violator of international law. It was a crucial safe haven for terrorists then, and it is a crucial front in the international war against terrorism now.
Furthermore, there was no "rush to war", and neither President Bush nor Prime Minister blair "lied" about the details. A lie is an intentional statement of falsehood, preceded by knowledge to the contrary. If President Bush didn't believe that the Iraqi government had illegal weapons (which have actually been found, but not in the numbers expected), then why did American troops go into combat fully trained and fully equipped for the possibility of biological and chemical attacks? If President Bush lied (meaning, if he knew beforehand that there were no illegal weapons, and went in anyway), then why did Coalition forces spend two years looking for those same illegal weapons? You know, the ones that Saddam Hussein never demonstrated that he'd completely eradicated? (By the way, full and public disclosure and supervision was a requirement of the treaty that ended Gulf War I, and several of the following UNSC resolutions.)
If President Bush "rushed to war" on his own accord, then why was there extensive debate in the House and Senate? Why was there extensive debate, lasting from October or November of 2002 until March of 2003, in the United Nations? And if it was obvious that Saddam Hussein didn't have these illegal weapons, then why wasn't anyone saying that at the time, not even the intelligence services of dissenting nations such as France, Russia, and China?
The answer, of course, is that the charges made by leftists against President Bush are false, uninformed, or downright intellectually dishonest, just like the demands for a "time table" or a "plan to win the peace" or an "exit strategy". Some of Bush's detractors are unable, through lack of education on the subject, to comprehend the situation; others are unwilling to do so; others comprehend the situation, and make up the same lies anyway.
Kudos to Prime Minister Blair for having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this Downing Street Memoranda hoopla, and kudos to the Honorable Mr. Bush, President of the finest nation on the planet and leader of the free world, for once again explaining the situation last night to the American people.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home