| When Bill Clinton was elected president, he promised "two for the price of one"; and it was generally assumed that his better half, Hillary, was the brains of the pair. This seemed to be borne out by the way she slipped into the New York senatorship, with all other contenders dropping dead on cue. But now when she is trying to get back into the White House with hubby, and has some explaining to do concerning her support of the Iraq war, her brain seems to suffer somewhat of anemia. Generally, one wonders why all those former supporters of this war stand there like little girls who wet their pants, instead of making it clear why it appeared to be the right action to take.
The first thing that could and should be pointed out is that the 2003 war against Iraq was really the conclusion of the 1991 war that was not properly finished by the older Bush. If Germany had been treated in 1945 as gingerly as Iraq was treated in 1991, then the Germans would still bid "good morning" by a staunch Heil Hitler, and a memorial of the thus cited figure would adorn every market square. Just like Hussein's memorials stood around all over Iraq.
Next, all former supporters of the war could illuminate the curious fact that none of the original opponents provided any convincing arguments against it at the time, least of all the impossibility of converting an islamic dictatorship into a working democracy. If those against the war presaged its outcome, they were awfully mum about it. One must suspect, they were just chicken.
Then, Hillary et al could claim that they would have managed matters differently when it became clear that the defeated Iraqis were not quite as docile as the defeated Germans; their boisterousness being sustained by their country's arch enemy across the border, Iran, who would not sit quiet watching it bloom through American benevolence. Everyone should have realized early during the conflict that the only promising way of action was to replace the old bad dictator by a new good one. None other than Lenin preached that a revolution must be followed first with a dictatorship. Any presidential contender would be smart to claim to have done just that. |
Much could be said about the now infamous subject of weapons for mass destruction, and indications of Iraq's possession thereof. If poison gas qualifies as such, they definitely had it, proven by the fact that they used it to kill a great number of their own people. The politico in charge of this action even went by cordial nicknames "Mr. Gas" and "Chemical Ali". Further, one must have suspected that they were secretly striving to build more goodies, considering how they invariably and sternly prohibited UN-inspectors from entering certain buildings and compounds. They had plenty of time to move incriminating gadgets across the border to Syria before the American invasion began. And if they had been left alone, does anyone believe they would have kept their fingers off atom bombs when Iran, with whom they fought bitterly for six years, was ardently fooling with one?
Finally, it is strange: then and now, when America was and is blamed to have lightheartedly started a terrible war - why isn't the world reminded with a bullhorn that none other than Saddam Hussein could have easily prevented it? Not only long beforehand, by admitting those inspectors into his "presidential palaces" (particularly when, as is now claimed, there wasn't anything to hide anyway); but even in the last minute, by accepting America's proposal to leave the country?
And why isn't it shouted out every day, that the mess Iraq is in now was caused by the Iraqis themselves who, after being liberated from a tyrant, showered with American money, and put in the position to create themselves a free and democratic country, instead fell for their historical enemy's temptation to start a civil war? That this war could be ended on a moment's notice, by - again - the Iraqis themselves? In other words, that the Iraqis are thankless idiots?
Elaborating on none of this in her speeches shows that Hillary isn't so smart after all.
There is another curious fact that talking about may not help her, but that provides a valuable insight into politics and history: how come that -
after Iraq "only" invaded Kuwait, America is blamed for the ensuing war;
Germany is blamed for world war II after it "only" invaded Poland, while England and France actually started war against Germany?
Come to think of it, perhaps it would be useful for Hillary to point that out as well: If it were true that America is responsible for the Iraq war, then it would follow that England and France started WWII.
Naw, forget it - you would loose the Jewish vote.