I had concerns about the harm Saddam was doing to his own people, and the threat he posed to others.
I had concerns about the world's ability to deal with issues like this, an inability to do much to help get rid of such bad leaders, between 'do nothing' and assassination/colonization.
I had sympathies for the idea of trying to spread democracy in Iraq and the middle east.
I say all this for context and to keep the issue from being black and white.
When liberals criticize Bush on Iraq, it's not because they love Saddam Hussein - though a case can be made that the Iraqi people were far better off before the US sanctions, Iraq had a relatively middle class, prosperous society despite the tyranny before the sanctions, that the sanctions were a terribly immoral policy that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents for ineffectual purpose, but that's another issue.
I'd like to post the basis for the criticism of republicans on Iraq in my view.
First and foremost, it's because Bush unnecessarily took the United States to war illegally.
There are several negative aspects to this, so I'll review them.
First, he lied to congress. Not about the WMD - assume that he thought they were there. He lied about whether he would go to war.
There was a period where Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors, and to get cooperation, Bush asked the UN for a new resolution, 1441, demanding cooperation and saying there would be consequences if the inspectors were not allowed back in; and he asked Congress for the authorization to use force if the inspectors were not allowed to do the inspections, which he said was needed to make Saddam feel pressure to cooperate, and which he promised was absolutely not a green light to go to war.
The policy worked. Saddam saw that the inspectors were the only way for him to avoid war and he cooperated. The inspectors were there for several months, in the Winter of 2002 and the Spring of 2003, until March 15. The United Nations - the only institution Saddam was legally obligated to comply with on the issue - appointed Hans Blix as the official investigator to advise them whether Saddam was cooperating, or whether he was not and force was needed.
Hans Blix made several reports; in them he said that the inspectors were accessing all sites required. He said that the cooperation was not perfect, but that it was substantial, and that it was adequate for completing the inspections, and that he specifically recommended against the use of force. He said the inspections would finish in a few months, and implement long-term safeguards preventing the startup of WMD programs.
At this point is where the betrayal of Bush begins on this. He tried to get a second UN security resolution authorizing force. The Security Council, noting the cooperation and the fact that a peaceful solution was in progress, declined to agree, and so Bush did not put it up for a vote. He then betrayed the US's word as a signatory to the UN charter, violated the law which says that treaties are fully the law of the land, and he violated his word to Congress, and he aborted the inspections in favor of invasion.
*That* was the betrayal of Bush.
The implications not only include the betrayal to the world and the Congress, but they mark the first such war in US history based on 'prevention', without even the pretense of our having been attacked, as flimsy as that has been sometimes. It set a precedent for any nation in the world to invade any other, UN signatory or not, if it claims it 'feels threatened' by another nation, even on very flimsy evidence which turns out to be false.
Second, the liberals' problem with Bush on Iraq is that having made the mistake of the war, good could have come of it had the post-war policies been well done.
They were a disaster. There was little planning, a lack of resources, the disbanding of the army which led directly to the huge insurgency, the unnecessary disbanding of the entire Ba'ath party including people such as schoolteachers when a far more selective purge would have worked better, it included gross mismanagement of the Iraqi $20 billion fund from oil for food which could have been used for rebuilding and instead was virtually wasted.
Further, they put no-experience 20-somethings in charge of important functions just because they'd applied to a right-wing think tank, they privatized billions of services unnecessarily increasing costs and war profiteering, they tried to implement a right-wing set of poliies from installing a corrupt puppet Chalabi to a flat tax (they did) to selling off all the national assets (they were thwarted). The rebuilding is mostly a disaster, with oil production and electrivity at or below pre-war levels.
Bush has given spreading democracy a bad name, which is tragic for the world which needs it.
These are key issues I see with Bush's policies on Iraq.
I post this as a clarification of my own position, since it's so often unclear what liberals are upset about - did we love Saddam? etc.
For the right-wingers who want to complain about liberals not being more constructive, I say deal with it: I demand accountability first, before you can ask for 'unity'.
For us to prevent the same mistakes, for us to prevent this going down as a Bush 'victory', a political price must be paid, in my view.
So my message on this now is for that price to be paid. We'll deal with the 'how to make the best of this as well', but not at the expense of accountability.
The republicans need to pay big time for this, and I feel no obligation to help them out of their political mess by playing 'bi-partisan'. They need to lose power, then we'll cooperate.
I had concerns about the world's ability to deal with issues like this, an inability to do much to help get rid of such bad leaders, between 'do nothing' and assassination/colonization.
I had sympathies for the idea of trying to spread democracy in Iraq and the middle east.
I say all this for context and to keep the issue from being black and white.
When liberals criticize Bush on Iraq, it's not because they love Saddam Hussein - though a case can be made that the Iraqi people were far better off before the US sanctions, Iraq had a relatively middle class, prosperous society despite the tyranny before the sanctions, that the sanctions were a terribly immoral policy that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents for ineffectual purpose, but that's another issue.
I'd like to post the basis for the criticism of republicans on Iraq in my view.
First and foremost, it's because Bush unnecessarily took the United States to war illegally.
There are several negative aspects to this, so I'll review them.
First, he lied to congress. Not about the WMD - assume that he thought they were there. He lied about whether he would go to war.
There was a period where Saddam did not cooperate with the inspectors, and to get cooperation, Bush asked the UN for a new resolution, 1441, demanding cooperation and saying there would be consequences if the inspectors were not allowed back in; and he asked Congress for the authorization to use force if the inspectors were not allowed to do the inspections, which he said was needed to make Saddam feel pressure to cooperate, and which he promised was absolutely not a green light to go to war.
The policy worked. Saddam saw that the inspectors were the only way for him to avoid war and he cooperated. The inspectors were there for several months, in the Winter of 2002 and the Spring of 2003, until March 15. The United Nations - the only institution Saddam was legally obligated to comply with on the issue - appointed Hans Blix as the official investigator to advise them whether Saddam was cooperating, or whether he was not and force was needed.
Hans Blix made several reports; in them he said that the inspectors were accessing all sites required. He said that the cooperation was not perfect, but that it was substantial, and that it was adequate for completing the inspections, and that he specifically recommended against the use of force. He said the inspections would finish in a few months, and implement long-term safeguards preventing the startup of WMD programs.
At this point is where the betrayal of Bush begins on this. He tried to get a second UN security resolution authorizing force. The Security Council, noting the cooperation and the fact that a peaceful solution was in progress, declined to agree, and so Bush did not put it up for a vote. He then betrayed the US's word as a signatory to the UN charter, violated the law which says that treaties are fully the law of the land, and he violated his word to Congress, and he aborted the inspections in favor of invasion.
*That* was the betrayal of Bush.
The implications not only include the betrayal to the world and the Congress, but they mark the first such war in US history based on 'prevention', without even the pretense of our having been attacked, as flimsy as that has been sometimes. It set a precedent for any nation in the world to invade any other, UN signatory or not, if it claims it 'feels threatened' by another nation, even on very flimsy evidence which turns out to be false.
Second, the liberals' problem with Bush on Iraq is that having made the mistake of the war, good could have come of it had the post-war policies been well done.
They were a disaster. There was little planning, a lack of resources, the disbanding of the army which led directly to the huge insurgency, the unnecessary disbanding of the entire Ba'ath party including people such as schoolteachers when a far more selective purge would have worked better, it included gross mismanagement of the Iraqi $20 billion fund from oil for food which could have been used for rebuilding and instead was virtually wasted.
Further, they put no-experience 20-somethings in charge of important functions just because they'd applied to a right-wing think tank, they privatized billions of services unnecessarily increasing costs and war profiteering, they tried to implement a right-wing set of poliies from installing a corrupt puppet Chalabi to a flat tax (they did) to selling off all the national assets (they were thwarted). The rebuilding is mostly a disaster, with oil production and electrivity at or below pre-war levels.
Bush has given spreading democracy a bad name, which is tragic for the world which needs it.
These are key issues I see with Bush's policies on Iraq.
I post this as a clarification of my own position, since it's so often unclear what liberals are upset about - did we love Saddam? etc.
For the right-wingers who want to complain about liberals not being more constructive, I say deal with it: I demand accountability first, before you can ask for 'unity'.
For us to prevent the same mistakes, for us to prevent this going down as a Bush 'victory', a political price must be paid, in my view.
So my message on this now is for that price to be paid. We'll deal with the 'how to make the best of this as well', but not at the expense of accountability.
The republicans need to pay big time for this, and I feel no obligation to help them out of their political mess by playing 'bi-partisan'. They need to lose power, then we'll cooperate.
