You completely FAILED to answer my post
You're right, I did.
I remember Bush's remark well, and I must say, I agreed with it at the time. But we were ALL naive. I think pretty much all Americans agree that on 9/11 everything changed.
I believe the thing the liberals don't understand, or at least, don't want to understand, is the connection between this war and 9/11.
I will refer you back to Tom Friedman (I think you and I agree he understands the Middle East better than almost anyone). Why does HE support the war? Because he, quite correctly, recognizes that over time eliminating Saddam's regime and replacing it with something that can become a democracy is the only hope for stemming the tide of anti-Americanism. This will bring the Middle East what it wants -- a slice of America right to curtail their jealousy; an opportunity for Iraqis to get the dignity they want, and an opportunity for a better life.
I think we could all learn a lot from Friedman, as he has analyzed the hatred these people have for us more deeply than about anyone.
I would not suggest this is going to be easy; we are going to lose some lives along the way, but there is hope that 20 years from now our kids won't be threatened by these sorry terrorists.
One other point. You COULD argue that we shouldn't have done what we've done. But I've yet to hear a person make a cogent argument presenting any alternative to war for eliminating Saddam's regime. Sensible people understand that more time, after 12 years, is not helpful. "Diplomatic efforts" are useless when you're dealing with a regime that has been proven to lie and cheat about the most basic provisions. Frankly, liberals simply failed to present any reasonable alternative to war; had they done so, it is entirely possible the war could have been delayed by the sheer politics of the situation. But liberals are devoid of solutions, they just know they don't want THIS solution. Unfortunately, we can't wait: Saddam has to go. Now. |
