Rob and Jason, you're far more trusting than I am, it seems. I see an administration that lied, distorted intelligence reports, changed its articulated motive several times and defied the will of the rest of the world to embark on a terribly ill-advised adventure with a very tragic outcome. Do you really think Saddam is more dangerous than the Saudis? Weren't the Saudis giving Al Qaeda most of its funding? (and probably still are) Why don't we attack them. Seems to me they have proven far more dangerous to our security than the Iraqis. No, instead we allow the only non-military flight on Sept. 12 out of the US full of Bin Laden family members on their way home to Saudi Arabia. Then we immediately start building the case for attacking Iraq, despite lack of evidence Saddam had anything to do with the attacks. Even the CIA was against this adventure until the agency was pressured by administration to sanction it publicly.
And as far as levels of tyranny, Saddam was not even close to being among the worst ever. Concurrently with the Iraq situation, there were far worse dictators committing unspeakable attrocities in Africa. Where is the outrage there?
Rob, do you really think democracy is going to flourish in a place where it is imposed by outsiders? Please tell me when such an endeavor has succeeded elsewhere. A sovereign people has to want a democracy. So far what we've seen in Iraq creates very real doubts. What you have is several factions fighting for power. If one overpowers the others, do you think they will extend democracy to them?
We should have learned our lesson from Vietnam and the countless instances of meddling in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. When I think of the squandered chances for true democracies in Central and South America in favor of supporting ruthless dictators, it makes me sad and angry. Very angry.
|