Why Bush was and is right, and fighting the Second Iraq War was Inevitable

Arthur Herman wrote a terrific article at Commentary.

[I]n light of what was actually known at the time about Saddam Hussein’s actions and intentions, and in light of what was added to our knowledge through his post-capture interrogations by the FBI—the decision to go to war takes on a very different character. The story that emerges is of a choice not only carefully weighed and deliberately arrived at but, in the circumstances, the one moral choice that any American President could make.Had, moreover, Bush failed to act when he did, the consequences could have been truly disastrous. The next American President would surely have faced the need, in decidedly less favorable circumstances, to pick up the challenge Bush had neglected. And since Bush’s unwillingness to do the necessary thing might rightly have cost him his second term, that next President would probably have been one of the many Democrats who, until March 2003, actually saw the same threat George Bush did.

It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate

When you need a collection of data concerning what was really going on at the time, and not some mendaciously whitewashed version as promoted years later for political advantage by such Democrat hawks as Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, this is the place to go. Read it all.

beaglescout-48.jpg

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, , Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , ,

What is victory in Iraq?

Think Progress quotes Robert Wexler (D-FL)

And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items. But when Mr. Ackerman asks what’s the definition of victory, we get little. Please tell us, general, what is winning?

Elsewhere, Max Boot responds:

Victory — defined as a democratic state that does not oppress its own people, provide a haven for terrorists, proliferate weapons of mass destruction or threaten its neighbors

Boot’s definition is basically the same as the definition the US Government published in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq way back in 2005 (maybe 2003).

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

  • Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
  • Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
  • Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Who says they still don’t know what victory means?

h/t: memeorandum

beaglescout-48.jpg

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, A Newt One- Coverage of Vets on the hill!, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Right Voices, Adeline and Hazel, The Yankee Sailor, and Chuck’s Place, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , ,