Independent Christian Voice

Monday

New Justification for Iraq War: 'A bolder approach'

All the other justifications for going to war with Iraq have fallen flat as evidence of imminent danger and grandiose promises of being greeted with flowers and jubilation have evaporated like the president's mandate. Now, we find out that the war effort in Iraq was "a bolder approach" to the war on terrorism. On yesterday's Meet the Press, Secretary of State (and former National (in)Security Advisor) Condoleeza Rice told host Tim Russert why invading Iraq was a good thing with this justification:
I'm quite certain, Tim, that when the American people see every day what they see on their screens, which is violence and, of course, the deaths of Americans and coalition forces, it's very difficult to take. We mourn every sacrifice. But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.

Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it's difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing.

Do you remember hearing that as a reason why we needed to go to war? Is this a new, contrived justification or was this the intent all along? To me, either way, it presents a problem for the administration. If it's the former, then they are admitting that their original justifications have proven insufficient and are manufacturing new justifications to try to defend their mistake. If it's the latter, then they were not honest to the American public before going to war, using fear and threats to command support rather than presenting a case and allowing the American public to decide if it's worth the cost. If the American public had been asked to support "a bolder approach" to changing the Middle East by invading a past enemy rather than any imminent threat, do you believe that there would have been popular support among the public or most of Congress? I don't. It's one more deception, any way you look at it.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home