The price of betrayal
Vice President Dick Cheney is slated to deliver a major address on Iraq and
the war on terror this morning in Washington. ...
[...]
Ever since Mr. Bush's Veteran's Day speech rebutting the canard that he
lied the country into war, congressional Democrats and parts of the mainstream
media have responded by coming up with inventive new ways to show that, even
though lawmakers were saying much the same thing as the Bush administration
about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities before the war, Mr. Bush must answer
for his mistakes, but Democrats deserve in essence a free pass. When the Bush
administration tries to defend itself against critics who suggest that the
United States should cut and run in Iraq, they accuse the White House of
"lashing out" or embarking on some kind of nefarious campaign to attack and
discredit critics of the war.
[...]
And what would happen if U.S. forces withdrew, only to return to Iraq after
the jihadists seized control of all or part of the country? How would the
goals of defeating terror while minimizing American casualties be achieved by
forcing our soldiers to go back into Iraq to retake territory that the
Islamofascists had captured from an elected Iraqi government?
Those who understand that our security will be undermined if the terrorists
win in Iraq need to challenge the politicians like Sen. Edward Kennedy, who
deride the effort to give the Iraqi people a decent life as "George Bush's
Vietnam." In Vietnam, such politicians got their way, and 30 years ago
Congress cut off aid that had enabled the people of South Vietnam to defend
themselves. The results: More than 60,000 Vietnamese executed, 2 million
refugees driven out of South Vietnam, and nearly a quarter of a million sent
to "re-education camps." In neighboring Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge Communist
dictatorship killed several million more people.
From what we have seen of Zarqawi and his jihadist associates, if they were
to capture the reins of power it would result in a bloodbath. Just as in
Indochina, betrayal of the Iraqis today would have deadly consequences.
[Read the whole thing
here.]
... What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say
is dishonest and reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S.
senators that the President of the United States or any member of his
administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war
intelligence.
Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians
who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against
Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the
intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their
own analytical capabilities. And they were free to reach their own
judgments based upon the evidence. They concluded, as the President and
I had concluded, and as the previous administration had concluded, that
Saddam Hussein was a threat. Available intelligence indicated that the
dictator of Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this judgment was
shared by the intelligence agencies of many other nations, ...
... In a post-9/11 world, the President and Congress of the United
States declined to trust the word of a dictator who had a history of
weapons of mass destruction programs, who actually used weapons of mass
destruction against innocent civilians in his own country, who tried to
assassinate a former President of the United States, who was routinely
shooting at allied pilots trying to enforce no fly zones, who had
excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the
international community, whose regime had been designated an official
state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are
the facts. ...
... The flaws in the intelligence are plain
enough in hindsight, but any suggestion that prewar information
was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation
is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best: "It is a lie
to say that the President lied to the American people." ...
... In light of the commitments our country has
made, and given the stated intentions of the enemy, those who
advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few
simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations
be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and
Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe,
with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?
It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by
the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists
and get them to leave us alone. In fact such a retreat would
convince the terrorists that free nations will change our
policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests whenever we
are confronted with murder and blackmail. A precipitous
withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an
invitation to further violence against free nations, and a
terrible blow to the future security of the United States of
America. ...
... The terrorists lack any capacity to inspire
the hearts of good men and women. And their only chance for
victory is for us to walk away from the fight. They have
contempt for our values, they doubt our strength, and they
believe that America will lose our nerve and let down our guard.
But this nation has made a decision: We will not retreat in the
face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of
tyrants or terrorists. ...
