The Bernoulli Effect

Wow, Jeff. Are you saying that the operation in Iraq is not a quagmire? Is it possible that our position in Iraq is assisting us in fighting terrorism? This sounds like a totally different military operation than the one as decribed by the DNC!

All sarcasm aside, it sure makes you wonder which war Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, Clinton, et al are watching! Hey, there's one thing Kerry said during his campaign that was true: he claimed he would have done almost everything differently. Considering that we have one success after another in Iraq, I tend to believe that to be true.

Jeff, you raise several key points here, but there is one thing you didn't mention and it ties this whole thing together pretty nicely. Bush is getting hammered right now for entering Iraq and "cooking up" the connection between Iraq and terrorism. In essence, the left is saying that we should not have invaded Iraq because Iraq never truly supported terrorists directly.

Let's assume for argument that it's true that Iraq had no connection with terrorists (it's a stretch, but hang with me here). Even if that is true, entering Iraq was still the right decision. We ended the genocide of Iraqis by Hussein. And by putting our troops into Iraq we have placed a big fat chess piece right in the heart of the Middle East. Your post here points out just how brilliant a move this was strategically. We can get to anyone that causes trouble in the Middle East while barely lifting a finger.

Iraq has been the strategic center of the Middle East for thousands of years. It used to be called Mesopotamia and Babylon. How many historical references are there to those critically important places? They were important because of their location, and that location is now known as Iraq (which means "deep roots" as a testament to the fertility of the land). If the left had been less focused on eliminating religion in this country and actually picked up a Bible, they would know just how geographically critical Iraq is in history.

Iraq has been a critical region, regardless of what it has been called, for thousands of years. It is no less critical today, and our President recognized that. Want to fight terrorism? Go plant yourself and bring freedom and confidence right into the center of the global region that is most infested with it. This is a gutsy move with lots of risk. I'm glad our President had the stones to pull it off.

The parallels here with the ending of the Cold War are striking. Reagan's strategy was highly controversial and widely condemned, but he beleived in it and stayed the course. And he won.

Reagan knew from his fifth birthday that he hated communism, fascism, and the atheistic brutality that it represented. He vowed to end it, and he succeeded. Now we have George Bush vowing to end terrorism in a controversial way that everythinks will fail. See the parallel?

The bottom line is that we have placed ourselves in the PERFECT spot to slam terrorism wherever it lives. The left just doesn't get that, or they're more focused on getting back into office by slamming Bush than they are on preserving our life and liberty.

Well put, especially the parallels between the Cold War and Iraq War.

And it also brings to mind that some have said the it was a mistake by the Bush Administration to put all of its eggs in the WMD basket. That's probably an easier judgement to make in hindsight, but the human rights issue should have been hammered on more, because it's harder for the Left to defend against.

Thanks for the link!

Did you read the update on the Shuttle foam?

Good call on that one.

AJStrata

AJ: I got the update, thanks.

Re: Putting all eggs into WMD basket.

This was a big screw-up. Essentially, it was our way of trying to appease those too weak to do anything about what was happening in Iraq. In other words, for all the countries that didn't give a damn about Iraq killing its citizens and were only worried if Iraq was an imminent threat the them.

It is almost a carbon copy of what Adlai Stevenson did before the UN, but with a different result. Countries cared about right an wrong back then, not just who had the ability to blow them up.

What Bush should have done is gone to the UN and said it's wrong to murder your own citizens, and Iraq is a strategically advantageous location to initiate the war on terror. They still wouldn't have voted in favor of war, but we would have at least exposed them for the self-interested morons that they are.

Basically, there were several reasons for going to war with Iraq. The only one the UN members gave a damn about was the threat Iraq posed to their own country. So, in response, that was the only sales pitch we made for the war. It was a mistake, but the only fallout is that liberals now perceive that they have found something to nail Bush on.

It didn't win them the last election, and won't win them the next. Water under the bridge. Next time, Mr. President, just tell the world that the only justification for your actions is the difference between right and wrong. If it's not good enough for them, who cares?