Today on Blogcritics
Home » Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy

Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been whining about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.

This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in the country we're protecting, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own backsides from political damnation. This was my line of thinking for the last few months – that is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.

Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. Democrats have been speaking up about the genocide in Darfur as if it were critical to US national security. One small example of this sudden urge by Democrats to police the Sudan was seen in a demonstration held by New York Congressman Charlie Rangel in July of 2004 which led to his arrest. There are a litany of examples of Democrats supporting intervention in Sudan. Buy why?

I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here are a list of reasons that make the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.

…yep that’s about it.

Here are a list of reasons that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.

• Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.

• Fear of a WMD program

• Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions

• Oil

• Connections to terrorism. Don’t pretend they didn’t exist. Al-Qaeda isn’t the only terrorist group in the world.

• The fact that Saddam was still in power in 2003 weakened America. It showed that we were not willing to backup our word against a vicious dictator. That was especially dangerous in a post-9/11 world.

• Saddam’s track record. Everything about Saddam was bad. At the time, he was the only world leader in power that had used WMDs. He was one of only a handful who we believed had a WMD program. We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one. Read a book. Perhaps the most insane of all the things Saddam did was during the first Gulf War. For those of you who can’t remember that far back, Saddam shot SCUD missiles at Israel after America started repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He did this because he was afraid he was going to lose power and hoped to divert attention by coaxing Israel into a war. If Israel attacked Iraq, every Arab country would join the war on his side, and he…well, he was a crazy SOB.

• Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US…at least according to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard.

• Then there was the whole trying to assassinate Bush 41.

I think you get the idea. Saddam was bad. I wish WMDs hadn't been hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because they were only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.

About Media Tycoon

  • Paul2

    The hostage nation
    Former UN relief chiefs Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday speak out against an attack on Iraq The Guardian Thursday November 29, 2001

    A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that Washington wants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of containment of the Iraqi regime and change to a policy of replacing, by force, Saddam Hussein and his government.

    The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily in reports from reputable international organisations such as Caritas, Unicef and Save the Children. A change to a policy of replacement by force will increase that suffering.

    [Paul2: Please don't post entire articles from the mainstream media into comments. The correct form is to include a properly formatted hyperlink, as I have above, to the full article whilst judiciously quoting an excerpt. Thanks. Comments Editor]

  • Media Tycoon

    why dont you summarize next time.

  • Media Tycoon

    I re-read the article and I understand the point of you posting it now. You are trying to say that you agree that the Clinton policy was a failure and that the new Bush policy, although far from perfect, is a step in the right direction. Self-governance is the only way for Iraq to be free. Thanks to president Bush, that is now possible. Three cheers for President Bush! Liberator of the oppressed Iraqis! Not only did he liberate them from Saddam, but also from Clintons murderous economic sanctions. Bravo Paul2…you devil.

  • Dave Nalle

    Well put, MT.

    I think Paul doesn’t know how to write HTML links.


  • Zedd

    FLIP FLOP – wow how neveux and clever!!! I may be out of my element here. This crowd is too sophisticated and perhaps even avant-garde for me. WOW!!

    Hey hipsters, has anyone heard of THE new dance called the jitter bug?

    Check you hep, cats later!!

  • Zedd


    Sorry I forgot about this thread.

    You see Clavos that is the difference between your way of thinking and mine.

    I don’t hop in to hard and fast theories then hang on to them for dear life.

    I think that we should take the step to evaluate the situation. Understand the players. Collaborate with the AU putting sanctions on neighboring countries who exacerbate the issue (Ethiopia et al). Coalesce with the international body and address the various issues independently with a goal of accomplishing the goal of stabilizing the entire country. Each sector of the problem has a philosophy that supports its position. Address the groups outside of the country who hold those same views and make them an intricate part of the solution, monitoring each of them.

    That is how you solve a problem. You address the issues. You just don’t set a strategy based on “we’ll wup them into actin’ right”.

  • Zedd

    David #42

    This is
    a chronology of the US involvement with Iran.

    We had plenty of leverage to help shape their policy. We just didn’t want to. We were too obsessed with Iran.

  • Zedd

    It takes a great deal of practice to learn how to FLIP FLOP. My daughter had years of gymnastics and tumbling before she mastered a FLIP FLOP. Its tough.


    Try not to bend your legs too much or sit too far down going into the flip-flop. Bending your legs will cause your momentum to be lost into the floor.

    Your flip-flop should not be too high. The energy you use in going too high will be lost from the lateral momentum, and it would most likely feel like you’re going straight up and coming straight down.

  • Zedd

    I wish I knew how to FLIP FLOP. I’m just too old and rusty to do so… sigh

    I guess you have to be a leftist liberal to know how. Some how I cant imagine Charles Rangel doing back hand spring. Oh well you never know.

    If he can do a Flip Flop, maybe I can. I’m going to the gym.