If Not Bush, Then Who

If Not Bush, Then Who?
Written 5/5/07

After September 11th 2001, what choices did we really have as a nation? Had Al Gore been elected to the highest office in the land our response to the terrorist attacks would have more likely than not, been to do nothing except retaliate with a few cruise missile attacks. History has shown us that Clinton's edict of appeasing terrorism and the very terrorist who have attacked us had only served to emboldened them into picking newer more high profile targets. Thankfully for our nations sake Al Gore did not win the 2000 presidential election and our response to 9/11 was proportionate to the crime.

After Afghanistan had been liberated, the Taliban routed in a most humiliating defeat, and a new government established by the Afghan people for the Afghan people our leaders turned our great nations eye toward that little infected pimple nation on the ass of the world known as Iraq.

If not for Bush then who I ask you? Sooner or later someone would have to deal with Saddam and his openly anti-cooperative stance against good and decent behavior. We all know that Clinton just passed the buck, something that he was very well known for, onto the next president, that being George Bush. Clinton was not a stupid man, in fact he could be classified as brilliant in that he skillfully navigated the politically land mine infested international stage of the Middle East and dispassionately dumped this Iraq turd squarely onto the plate of his successor. And what was his successor to do? Was he to just leave the turd sitting there for the next person to hold the office to deal with, or was he to do something about it? Well after September 11th that turd's stench became more than any one man could bare, so it was decided that it would once and for all be flushed away. So for right or wrong, the buck passing would have to stop in the hands of George W. Bush.

In the wake of history we all know now that what we thought we new then was not the truth. Many feel that we were led astray and in fact openly lied to by the President and the whole Iraq war was nothing more than a vendetta against a man who had tried to kill the Presidents father, the first President Bush. Some even felt that it was all about oil and power, that this whole war was nothing more than a manufactured excuse to steal the riches of Iraq and enslave its population. None of these have baked hippy wet dreams are true, the war wasn't about revenge or oil; it was about making the war on terror a real war. You see after the Taliban had been defeated there was really no front line for the war on Terror. So the administration decided to deal with two problems at the same time. One, the Iraq issue and the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was trying to acquire more, and two, give the bloodthirsty anti-American jihad terrorists a place to come and fight the evil vile Americans. A central point were these cave dwelling religious fanatics could come and be killed.

In the greater scheme of things, there really was no choice. The evidence had mounted that Iraq had indeed gathered WMD's and Saddam had grown even more belligerent with time. Under the terms of the first Gulf War ceasefire we had the right to resume military action if Saddam failed to comply with any of the terms of the ceasefire. The fact that he attempted to have former President Bush assassinated was all the justification the US needed to go to war, however then President Clinton, in his tried and true way, only sent in a limited cruise missile strike. This lack of a response only served to make Saddam more aggressive in his maneuverings with the UN. When the US decided to finally end this stand off with Saddam our leaders went to the UN seeking help. What we did not know, could not have known, was that many of the nations who ultimately denounced the Iraq war had in fact been dealing with Saddam and growing fat off the hidden and illegal deals they had with him. The food for oil scam proves this point without question. Even the highest-ranking UN official had his hands in this cookie jar of shame. These nations did not want to end the gravy train that was Iraq because they wanted to keep the blood money flowing and to prevent their deals from ever seeing the light of day. Their decisions about the war were not guided by moral values; they were guided by greed pure and simple. And when they were discovered, did they apologize, no, they launched an anti-American propaganda war that even to this day clouds the truth of their actions in that they willfully violated international law, endangered American lives, and flat out lied to the member nations of the UN about their illegal back door dealings with Iraq. It was not moral fortitude as they claim that led them, our supposed allies, to leave America virtually standing by herself in the face of terrorism, it was selfishness.

In the end the war happened and the mistakes that led to it became known. However, again, I must ask you, if not Bush then who? At some point Saddam would have had to been dealt with one way or another. Clinton had passed the buck onward and for the most part I believe Bush would have ultimately done the same had it not been for 9/11.

They say that Bush lied, well we know that that is simply not true because the same Intel used by Bush and company, as justification for the war was the same Intel that Bill Clinton had been given. Clinton believed it, in fact so did most nations who were privy to the information. It wasn't until after the war that we all discovered, much to the embarrassment of our nations leaders, that the information was wrong. Even though we still had justification for taking action:

1. Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire.
a. He would not allow weapons inspectors to do their jobs.
b. He masterminded the assassination attempt on Former President Bush.
c. He failed to comply with UN resolutions.
d. It was believed that he had stocked piled WMD's
e. It was believed that he was seeking more WMD's
f. He was a destabilizing figure in the middle east
g. It was believed that he was supporting terrorism and paying terrorist bombers to kill themselves in Israel.
h. He was openly defiant in the face of good will and used the money from oil for food deals to beef up his military and to build new palaces all the while his people were starving in the streets.

2. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD's and the will to use them.

Following the victory over Saddam and his government several mistakes were made by Bush's administration. Many believe that this is the point when things began to spin out of control in Iraq.

1. The people who were charged with establishing a new government in Iraq were replaced by Administration lackeys who followed a self destructive anti-baath debaathification plan and set in motion events that would lead to years of blood shed by insurgents and terrorists.
2. The Vice Presidents former company, Halliburton was given a no bid contract deal worth billions to assist in US government operations and help rebuild Iraq.
3. Greed became the word of the day as the feeding frenzy began and the noble goals that were outlined as the secondary excuse for going to war were thrown aside.

The violence that followed these early mistakes still haunts us today. Each day that passes only serves to increase the body count of US service personnel. Who is to blame for this? Many far left liberals choose to lay the blame for US dead squarely in the lap of President Bush. However he really is not at fault for this, the Democrats are.
First and foremost, no one could have predicted, nor did they predict, the events that would follow the defeat of Saddam and his minions.

The Democrats saw an opportunity to gain some political traction at the expense of our troops. They began to test the waters of anti-war sentiment as early as 2003 and heavily during the 2004 Presidential election. They called for withdrawals, redeployments, and pullouts. To the insurgents, the terrorist, and the religious leaders in Iraq, and indeed within the entire Muslim world, these terms and the anti war sentiment of the far left liberal Democrats only served to give them hope. Hope that if they killed enough of our soldiers we would loose our will to fight and run home crying to momma. So they stepped up their campaign of terror and drove the US soldier body count up. They made no qualms about this, and in fact bragged openly about it. They captured and beheaded American personnel, blew up troops with IED's, manufactured worldwide outrage with propaganda, false accusations of war crimes, and staged acts of atrocities that they then blamed US troops for. They did this all the while pointing at US mistakes and citing them as excuses to behead and kill even more. During this time the anti-Bush far left liberal anti-war Democrats cheered and pushed harder and more frequently for withdrawal. The more the US troops the terrorists killed the more the Democrats called for pullout, the more the terrorists killed. It became a self-feeding circle jerk between the far left liberal Democrats and the fanatical fascist Islamic terrorists. They were feeding off of each other like cannibals at an all you can eat human buffet. In one instance Osama Bin Laden himself even offered his support to John Kerry during his bid for the Presidency, stating that he wanted Kerry to win. Ask yourselves why would a terrorist bent upon killing as many Americans as he could, one of the master minds of 9/11 want to support a Democratic candidate for President? Simple, Kerry was firmly entrenched in the "pull out" of Iraq camp by this time and Bin Laden saw him, and the Democratic Party as his savior.

The more the Democrats called for withdrawal the more troops in Iraq died. The media had long since jumped onto the anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Truth band wagon and were doing their best to promote a negative view of the war despite the fact that the war was going well. Many politicians, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jimmy Cater all went to other nations and denounced both President Bush and the war on terror. Treasonous actions to say the least perpetrated by men seeking nothing more than political attention and 250k on the lecture circuit. These men, through their actions, gave the terrorists exactly what they needed, a means to turn the world against their enemy, and play themselves off as the victims. Here in the US people began calling these terrorist, the very people who were killing our troops in Iraq, freedom fighters. They started to call Bush a war criminal and elements of our own government began to leak vital top-secret information to the ever-growing anti-Bush media. Osama Bin Laden said it best when he said that we would loose because we are afraid to die and they, meaning him and his followers, are not. He knew that the Democrats would ultimately start to use the war as a political propaganda machine to help them regain power in Washington. So he played to their wishes and they lapped it up like starving dogs at dinnertime.

The Democrats used our troops as pawns in their political scheming to regain power. How many of our men and women in uniform died because they failed to support our nations in time of war? They knew that if they took a public anti-war position that it would embolden the fanatics in the middle east to kill even more of our servicemen and women. They knowingly and willfully sacrificed our troops so that they could return to power in Washington. And once they got that power what did they do but hold up funding for our troops in an arm-twisting maneuver to force a full on retreat out of Iraq.

The Democrats believe that they know what is best for everyone and that no one should have the right to freedom of choice. They believe that we all need to be told how to think, and what to think via politically correctness coupled with anti-freedom legislation. They prove day in and day out with their petty anti-Bush, anti-Military, anti-Constitutional acts of legislation that they are shameless opportunistic hypocrites. They have deliberately used our troops, cost the lives of thousands of them, just to get back into power. And once there they continue to put the lives of our troops secondary to their own political agenda's.

Iraq was a mistake in hindsight, but as stated, if not Bush then who? How long would the Democrats have passed on that buck before finally realizing that we all stand together in this fight against terrorism or we all stand apart as we watch the mushroom clouds rise up over our cities? There is absolutely no doubt that eventually millions of Americans are going to pay the ultimate price for the actions of the current Democratic party as their lives are snuffed out in the flash of nuclear bombs set off by the very terrorist they helped to escape justice. When that day comes, who will they blame? Surely they won't accept responsibility for their own actions, actions that paved the way for the terrorist to acquire then use such weapons of mass destruction. No they will pass the buck yet once again onto the very people who tried to prevent these kinds of acts by saying that they failed to put an end to terrorism therefore they are to blame. They will blame Bush for not doing enough to end terrorism, forgetting that they themselves tied his hands through their actions. Oh the Democrats will stand up and play the victims as they pass the blame of their own legacy, a legacy of anti-military, anti-war on terrorism, and anti-American sentiment onto the very people who tried, and were prevented, from protecting this nation. These far left liberal Democrats will call for senate hearings, criminal charges, and investigations but in the end, when the truth is know, that it was they who opened the door that allowed the terrorists to eviscerate our cities, will pass the buck once again and put the blame for this great American tragedy on someone else. And when the time once again comes to stand up and fight for freedom, they will loose their will, become weak at the knees and fall back on their tried and true gravy train; they will take an anti-war stance and cost even more American deaths as they maneuver for even more political power.

If not Bush, then who? Our children that is who.