The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM
Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM
Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM
Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM
The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM
From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM
Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008
Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008
The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006
Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008
Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007
Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006
A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006
Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori
WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):
The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
The Liberation Rationale
A common trick of the demagogue is to rearrange a timeline to fit one's rhetorical thesis. Liberal critics have now invented a brand-new trick: create a time line where there was none before. As in, "liberating Iraq was only a rationale that came about after we were already stuck in Iraq."
No, clearly, not.
I ask you Republicans and conservatives readers here to question yourself: was replacing tyranny with liberation and democracy one of the chief rationales for the Iraq war, or not? Before the invasion of Iraq, when Bush spoke of the chance at liberating Iraq, did that possibility thrill you or make you blanch?
Now what my Democrat readers here need to understand if they do not understand it already, is that a lot of Republicans really believe this liberation stuff. It is not a post-hoc justification. A great many of us we were liberationists in the Cold War. There is nothing 'neo' about this article of conservative faith, it is the Reagan foreign policy heritage. The liberation rationale for war in Iraq was in place before the war was even contemplated. And, the administration quite avowedly said that liberation was one of the reasons for war--so you cannot place it further out on the timeline. The fact that liberal demagogues feel the need to place it further out on the timeline is quite a telling trick to play - obviously democracy in Iraq interferes with the naysayers' rhetoric that nothing good has, or will, come from the conflict. Saying that liberation was an afterthought tries to imply that came merely by accident rather than something that was counted on from the beginning.
Truth is, deep in their hearts, the Democrats believe all this liberation stuff also. It was a Democrat who sent troops to the beaches of Normandy. It was a Democrat who sent troops to the beaches of Inchon. Warhawk Kennedy shored up South Vietnam to keep it free from communist tyranny. Johnson followed through by sending armies to Vietnam. Jimmy Carter made human rights the very centerpiece of his administration. Bill Clinton chided George Bush, Sr. for being too friendly with wholesale human rights abuser China.
Bill Clinton also waged a war in order to save lives in Kosovo. He also made profuse apologies for doing nothing about genocide in Rwanda.
These liberation and human rights rationales are your heritage too, Democrats. Do not think for an instant that they did not have considerable influence on George W. Bush when he made the decision to go to Iraq. I am not trying to trap Democrats into complicity with the Iraq War--I am telling them that they should be proud their influence is taken so seriously, not just here but around the world.
Democrats cheered Bill Clinton for liberating Kosovo and ending the ethnic cleansing there. So why the double standard now?
The mindset seems to be that Bush does not deserve credit for anything about this war, nor does he even deserve to win, because the real reason we went to war was [put alternate theory here]. Thus, the war is 'tainted'. We had false, impure motives for going to war in Iraq, Bush LIED about it, and Bush must be punished for this. Then others will see what happened to Bush, and never again will anything but pure altruism taint our rationales for war.
Let us assume Bush lied. More than that, let us assume that every accusation made by Democrats against Republicans in the Iraq War is true. Bush did cook up intelligence to start a war with Iraq. Bush wanted a war in Iraq for his oil buddies. Cheney thought of Halliburton first, and the troops later. Rumsfeld is incompetent, but enjoys cruelty toward detainees, Gonzalez is writing briefs on how to strip Americans of all their rights.
Fact is, this bunch of lying, greedy oil-soaked fascists achieved marvelous things. In spite of themselves, they defeated a genocidal tyrant and replaced it with a democracy. They did it in Afghanistan too. They brought the vote to 50 million men and women. Democracy spilled over into Lebanon. Democracy is no longer a dirty word in the muslim world. Libya surrendered its WMD program ( I guess you could say the liberation of Iraq really did eliminate WMDs after all). What is the lesson to be drawn here? That bad guys sometimes achieve things that would have earned Jimmy Carter an entire mantlepiece of Nobel Prizes?
I just can't help but think that 50 years from now, Iraq will be seen as the avant-garde victory for democracy that made the liberation of the entire region possible. If the Democrats want to take some of the credit, I won't begrudge them that.
I am Ken McCracken, and you're not. I can normally be found just making stuff up at Am I A Pundit Now?
Posted by · 16 July 2005 06:32 PM
My husband and I were discussing... WHY? the liberals are so anti war in Iraq??? I said no one really likes war! ...BUT... I believe that most of the liberals who are so against the war in Iraq are really just anti GOP and anti Bush!... Sept. 11th. our country was attacked by Al Qaeda! Unknowing, unsuspecting civilians were killed by suicide hyjacking "Muslim" fanatics!... These enemies are not a easy target we can see!... To protect our citizens from these attackers is almost impossible! This is a war like no other in the History of war, as far as I know?... I believe most of the Dems. and Liberal Leftists will stop at nothing with their PARTISAN ways! The Republican leaders need to stiffen their spines and stand up to these radical lefties! George W. is awesome! I like they way he handles matters with the left!...
Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 16, 2005 07:56 PM
Basically!...What we are fighting is a large group of homicidal, suicidal,fanatical, control freaks!... What we have to realize is... The process in this war is to hopefully bring freedom and democracy into the Mid-East region. By doing that the Al Qaeda operatives will eventually kill themselves off!!!!
Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 16, 2005 08:41 PM
Just one more thing!... Those Peace prizes don't carry much clout with me anymore because ARAFAT of all people got one!... Do you know what I mean?
Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 16, 2005 08:44 PM
Yeah I think giving Yasser Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize just totally ruined the concept for me.
It means nothing now.
Posted by: Am I A Pundit Now? at July 17, 2005 12:47 AM
That we could not liberate Eastern Europe after WW2 was understandable. And again Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968; though they stung more than before. Then came the ignomity of defeat in Vietnam.
Posted by: Huan at July 17, 2005 08:50 AM
Until the Peace Prize is taken away from Arafat it doesn't hold any real importance to me either! Can they take it back? I once had respect for it! It has been cheapened by honoring a man like Arafat!
Posted by: Cindy T. at July 17, 2005 09:22 AM
Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 18, 2005 08:37 AM
Hey there Will. Went back and dug up an old post I linked to as a present. Boom.
Just a nice bit to have when they say that Bush "shifted his tactics" to going for democracy post-invasion.
Posted by: Adam at July 18, 2005 10:22 PM