More True Than Ever

Recently I've been reading random editorials from 2000-2005 that relate to the Iraq war and President Bush. It's really amazing to me how they sound in the context of 2007. It's especially interesting to see people complaining about losing 1000 soldiers as the article below does. Now we're well over 3000, and there's no question in my mind that if we're still there through 2008, we'll have lost 5000. What a waste of life and resources.

It's strange for me. I was in the minority of people who opposed the war from the beginning. At the time, people who felt as I did were hard to come by. Even then, I didn't imagine things would go as badly as they have, it just didn't seem like a good idea. And I felt like the population was being manipulated, which always sets off warning bells in my mind. Think back...something just didn't feel right...did it?

The funny thing is, there are still plenty of people who attack those who share my opinions as unpatrotic or for failing to "support the troops." Nevermind the fact that the People's disapproval of the war, may, in the end, be the ONLY reason the soldiers get to come home. And don't think that they don't want to. A Zogby poll in March 2006 found that 72% of US soldiers in Iraq say the war should be ended within a year, and a quarter say that all troops should be withdrawn immediately. I'll bet you a fifty-spot that number is over 80% today.

. . .

Anyway, enough of my own writing...let's get to the article that sparked this thing in the first place. One of my favorite subjects from 2004, Flip-Flops.


SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/192828_joel29.html
Reprinted without permission

In the Northwest: Bush-Cheney flip-flops cost America in blood

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

As George W. Bush has lately shown, the tactic of successfully defining your opponent is to political conflict what occupying the high ground is to waging war.

The Bush-Cheney campaign has gleefully labeled John Kerry a flip-flopper. But what of Bush-Cheney flip-flops? They're getting a lot less ink, but America is paying a price in blood.

Little noticed, and worthy of lengthy consideration, is a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

The words of our future vice president -- defending the decision to end Gulf War I without occupying Iraq -- eerily foretell today's morass. Here is what Cheney said in '92:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

How -- given what he said then -- does Cheney get off challenging the judgment and strength of those who argue that we are bogged down and shedding blood today?

Is Saddam worth the lives of 1,046 (at last count) dead Americans, and 7,000 injured Americans?

Dick Cheney posed the hard-nosed questions that should be asked by a president in time of war. George Bush is out on the campaign trail boasting he's hard-nosed because he didn't ask how a "Mission Accomplished!" could unravel.

Kerry is taking a pounding from the relentless Republican message machine. A GOP TV ad shows Kerry windsurfing, with Strauss' "Blue Danube" waltz playing in the background, as the voice-over claims the nominee has shifted positions "whichever way the wind blows."

In case the "mainstream" media are interested, or Fox News wants to balance its reporting to furnish a few moments of fairness, here are a few Bush flip-flops that might be put before the voters:

Nation-Building: As a candidate, Dubya traveled the land in 2000 denouncing the Clinton administration for using U.S. troops in what he called "nation-building."

"I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence," he told a rally. "My view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win wars -- therefore, (to) prevent war from happening in the first place."

What are we doing in Iraq if not "nation-building?" Enmeshed in Iraq, are we properly prepared to fight such crazies as the nuclear weapon-equipped "Great Leader" of North Korea, Kim Jong Il?

Our Real Enemy: Two days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him."

Six months later, laying political groundwork for the Iraq war, the president said: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

The 9/11 Commission: The White House initially opposed creation of an independent commission to investigate causes of the 9/11 atrocities. A July 2002 statement read: "The administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review (to Congress' investigation)."

The administration reversed course five months later. The bipartisan commission, including former Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., distinguished itself at hearings and in its findings and recommendations.

Homeland Security: In the fall of 2001, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., proposed creating a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer outlined the administration's opposition in October 2001, saying Congress did not need to make the director's job "a statutory post" and that "every agency of the government has security concerns."

A year later, the Bush administration was flaying Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga. -- a Vietnam triple amputee -- for allegedly being an obstacle to creation of the department. Anti-Cleland ads showing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein flashed across the TV screens of Georgia.

Such are this administration's major national security flip-flops. But other flips bear on our safety.

During the 2000 campaign, candidate Bush pledged to limit carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. It didn't happen. The president promised to support -- or at least sign -- renewal of Congress' 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons. The Bush administration didn't lift a finger to extend the ban, which recently expired.

Out here on America's "Left Coast," candidate George Bush proclaimed himself a steadfast free trader. Even today, Republican State Chairman Chris Vance hammers Kerry as a flip-flopper on trade.

How, then, to explain the president's 2002 decision to slap tariffs of 8 to 30 percent on steel imports to the United States? (The tariffs were lifted after 21 months.)

Answer: The steel-producing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia have 46 fought-over electoral votes in this year's election.