In Obama’s Iraq war speech tonight, he should thank Bush

I’m eager to hear what President Obama has to say about the Iraq war tonight.

Will he say the forces of democracy won? Will he even mention democracy and freedom? Will he say the “surge” worked? And will he finally recognize President Bush for having the courage to lead the “surge” when leading Democrats were demanding we surrender Iraq to the totalitarians?

Robert Gibbs, Obama’s spokesman, said yesterday that Obama has suggested in the past that the “surge” worked. Power Line’s John Hinderaker remembers at least a few Obama comments that didn’t sound so supportive:

Since Gibbs says it is important to examine Obama’s old statements on the surge, there is this, from January 2007: “We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war,” Obama said on CBS’ Face the Nation. “And until we acknowledge that reality, we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops. I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believe that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

A few months later, in July 2007, Obama told an audience in New Hampshire, “Here’s what we know: the surge has not worked.”

By January 2008, with the surge working, Obama revised his remarks at a debate in New Hampshire: “Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.”

Bipartisan victory. When Obama speaks tonight from the Oval Office, will we see a little more humility and honesty about how the Iraq war was won? The Democrats -- the quieter, realistic Democrats, at least -- do deserve a share of the credit for the victory of freedom in Iraq. Indeed, it was the Democratic Congress that approved more than half the $735 billion that’s been spent on the liberation of Iraq.

So Mr. President, give your party some credit and take some credit yourself, but give some props to the “decider” who led an unpopular, but overwhelmingly successful final campaign to defeat tyranny and win the Iraq war in 2007 and 2008.

Frank Warner

Comments

[Neo]

Apparently, we fought the war in Iraq for the "Middle Class" .. or something like that.

[Jon]

What? I'm a soldier and fought in Iraq and honestly, I don't know why we invaded Iraq. And actually, many of us feel this way.

However, it's not my place to question the duty of country that I chose when I enlisted. We're all very proud of our service. My duty was to serve this great nation under the command of the President no matter if the cause for war seemed to change over time in order to gain support for it.

[Frank Warner]

I'd say read up on it.

Start with President Bush's Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the United Nations, making his case for action against Saddam Hussein.

[Jon]

You think I'm going to believe an Administration that had Dick Cheney as the Vice President when he's had 5 deferments?!

Everything they spewed out was proven to be false. When all else failed, it turned into lets free the Iraqi people. Well heck, lets go try to free everyone from oppression. Why just Iraq?

All these Republicans and Neo-cons want to fight all these wars. Ya know?! Go sign up then! Send your daughter, send your son! All these damn cowards send us to do their dirty work and then they say "We appreciate your sacrifice and honor your families" etc. Yea...BS. Don't talk the talk, walk the walk!

War is out of sight out of mind. If we're at war, we should have a war tax to help pay for it and to remind EVERYONE every week on your paycheck that your country is at war....US War Tax. EVERYONE would then feel the hardache of the war.

Hey, if you believe in the cause. Enlist! I wonder how many of the people who comment here voted for Bush twice and actually believed in the cause and enlisted.

[Frank Warner]

Obviously, you didn't hear or read that speech, Jon. Had you read it, you would have found out that ending repression was not an add-on late justification for action against Saddam Hussein. It was President Bush's first reason for regime change.

At the United Nations in 2002, Bush listed the many resolutions passed by the U.N. as conditions for the 1991 cease-fire that allowed Saddam and the Baathists to survive after their deadly and illegal annexation of Kuwait, and their expulsion from Kuwait.

The first resolution cited by Bush was U.N. Resolution 688, which required that Saddam's regime end its repression of the Iraqi people. Eleven and 12 years later, Saddam had not ended his repression. So he had broken the terms of the cease-fire. In effect, Saddam was saying the war was on again.

That Resolution 688 was rare in the history of the United Nations. Because it is half democracies, half dictatorships, the U.N. almost never demands a government end its repression. (Dictators think it sets a bad precedent.)

Besides Resolution 688, there were several other obligations Saddam's Baathists had failed to meet, such as ending their support for terrorists (like the suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine), such as returning 600 Kuwaiti POWs to Kuwait, such as cooperating immediately and fully with the U.N. arms inspectors. Saddam also was siphoning money from the U.N. Oil for Food program, and by doing so he was allowing Iraqis to die of sickness and starvation.

No other living leader on Earth had invaded as many nations and violated as many U.N. resolutions as Saddam. By violating the cease-fire terms, Saddam ended the cease-fire. Had those terms not been enforced, no future U.N. cease-fire could have been taken seriously.

In Iraq, the mass starvations are over. The government-ordered secret arrests and secret murders are over. The mass graves no longer are growing. Newspapers have sprung up by the hundreds. TV stations have started by the dozens. The people have freely elected their own government.

With freedom, the Iraq people finally have a chance at a future of peace.

That is what the United States fought for in Iraq. That is why more than 1 million Americans fought in Iraq over the last eight years (19 years, really, going back to 1991), and more than 4,000 died. Until Iraq was free and democratic, it was never going to be at peace. Its dictatorship was always going to be a threat, to us and most seriously, to its people.

The dictatorship is gone. The repression is over. Freedom wins.