Where I Stand

It will come as no surprise to even first time readers of this blog that I'm for victory in Iraq. I have a "poster" on this blog saying just that. However, I wasn't gung ho for going to war in Iraq before it actually happened, so I feel I should clarify my position on this volatile issue.

When President Bush first mentioned going to war with Iraq I didn't think it was a good idea. I didn't think Bush had made the case that Iraq was a unique threat to America. I know, I'm sounding like Susan Sarandon, but let me explain. I didn't doubt that Iraq had WMD's. I simply believed that it wouldn't matter if we destroyed every WMD in Iraq because there were too many other sources for terrorists to get WMD's if they really wanted them. Islamic Pakistan, for instance, has nukes. Surely, if we destroyed Saddam's WMD's Osama could go there for material to make a dirty bomb. Russia has had loose control over its nukes since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And lets not forget North Korea, which would sell anything to anyone to prop itsself up. So, if the war in Iraq was meant to keep America safe from WMD-wielding terrorists, it was a failed war from the start because WMD's are everywhere.

I also had reservations about the war because I remember what happened at the end of the Gulf War, when the first President Bush let Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shiites after calling on them to revolt against him. I feared that that memory would blunt at least some of the expected enthusiasm for America as liberator. After all, how could people who were betrayed--yes, betrayed--by America years earlier be expected to embrace American troops now? So, I had a couple of serious doubts about the war, but once we were committed I was gung ho for victory which sets me apart from people like Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, etc., who are routing for defeat.

Now that we're in the fight I understand that we must win. I understand that overthrowing Saddam's horrific regime was a noble act, even if it wasn't the stated reason for going to war. I understand that the insurgents aren't freedom fighters, as Saddamite Cindy stupidly called them, but bad guys who will put Iraq back under tyranny if they win. I understand that Abu Ghraib was a mole hill, not a mountain. I understand that Americans are free to question or oppose the war, but I also understand that people who call the insurgents freedom fighters and Bush the world's greatest terrorist are anti-American/Bush, not anti-war.

We all now know that Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I'm willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely believed they existed, based on the intelligence given to him. And remember, other leaders such as Tony Blair and Russia's Putin, also believed that Saddam had WMD's. I don't think Bush lied.

I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if I were Bush. Instead, I would've put an indefinite moratorium on Muslim immigration to America. Until the war on terror was won, no Muslim would enter this country. I then would've put troops on the Mexican border to stop terrorists and others from entering America illegally. Next, I would've had a meeting with all the auto makers who build and/or sell cars in America, and I would've told them that within a year a) all cars sold in America must get 50 mpg and b) they must invent an easy-to-install device for existing cars that would increase their mpg by at least 10%. Next, I would've worked with Congress, governors, and mayors to hammer out a tax incentive/cut for Americans who solarize their homes. Next, I would've massively increased government funding for r&d on alternative energy and the infrastructure for delivering it to the public. The purpose of all this would be to impoverish our enemies and free us to deal with them without worrying about oil supplies. And that would be just the beginning!

My "instead of" scenario outlined above would win me no points from the politically correct crowd, but the purpose of a president is to protect the American people, not kowtow to political correctness. Bush has done what he thought was necessary to protect us. Maybe he was wrong, but it is outrageous to accuse him of deliberately lying us into a war just to make oil profits. The people who do that are only revealing the irrational, ideology-driven, hatred of Bush that's the real driving force behind their "pacifism". They are on the side of the insurgents; I am on the side of America. That's where I stand. How about you?