Don't Blame Tony Blair and George Bush

I was at the Laundry Mart drying up a couple of loads since my drier broke, and sat there killing the last 30 minutes. There are three humongous television screens in there and different programs displayed on each screen. One caught my attention; its "The View" (bunch of women with opposing political views) facing off with former Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair. I moved closed to that screen and watched the most Liberal laughable women trying to grill one of the finest British leaders. The session appeared to be in half-way and I didn't hear other craps that may have been darted at Mr. Blair, but the question that the ugly, lesbian looking woman, Joy Behar, asked Mr. Blair pissed me off. Not because the question should not be asked, but the way the question was framed. It was just an outright insult to Blair's intelligence in my judgement. Like many leftist journalists, Behar's style of questioning does not only reflected the level of intelligent these people have, but is a reflective of how objective journalism lost its footing since Obama took office.

The View

Behar asked Mr. Blair about his thoughts on his so-called "Controversial" decision, like Bush's decision, to invade Iraq when they had 'no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)'. The question was framed in such a condescending way which attached to a single line of condemnation of the US/ UK invasion of Iraq. The buzz words are "controversial" and "no WMD". This is a classic liberal tactic-pretending they don't understand what's going. Even if US enemies attacked America, to the Liberals, US deserves it. As President Obama's mentor proclaimed on the podium of his church, "Americans chicken coming home to roast!" (a reference to the attack of 9/11). And like the Liberals who called the prisoners of Guantanamo freedom fighters and are defending them in courts while calling American soldiers cold-blooded murderers, Behar is not interesting in the perspective of the leaders of UK and US and the circumstances leading up to the war.

Off course war is not fun. Its ugly and nasty. It brings chaos and anarchy to every nation engaging in it. However, war is oftentimes necessary if the circumstances permitting it and also if all options are exhausted. The 'war against terror' was a war supported by Americans, including Democrat leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry, and majority of the Democrats leadership. Even when President Bush decided it was time to force Iraq into giving up its WMD, Democrat leaders, not only supported it, but made public speeches against Saddam Hussein.

Watch these Democrat leaders who are now acting as the biggest opponents of the war against Iraq. Its interesting how they turned against their own country when their political futures at stake. It is simply impossible to change their words because they are on video and all over the internet. The ones that look like fools are those who are now pretending President Bush invaded Iraq without any support from their side.

People who spoke in support of the plan to invade Iraq weren't rookie Democrats. They are the leaders and the Liberal Dems who hold important offices: Clinton (Former President: Demo), John Kerry (Former Presidential candidate 2004: Democrat), Cris Dodd (Former Presidential candidate 2008), Al Gore (Vice President and Presidential candidate 2000), Tedd Kennedy (The most feared senator: Democrat), Hillary Clinton (Presidential candidate 2008: Democrat), Dean Howard (Presidential candidate 2004: Democrat)

Whose Fault?

Was it the fault of President Bush and Blair that no WMD was found in Iraq? Off course not. Any reasonable person would understand the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq, and it is easy to point fingers after the facts and after the dusts settled. However, it was impossible to determine what exactly Hussein had in his arsenal, but that is why the whole process sought to do, which is to force him to give his weapons. While the war was looming, if Saddam didn't have any weapons, he would have provided to the UN Inspectors the proofs he had no weapons, instead he booted them off Baghdad.

Let me explain why it wasn't Bush's/Blair's fault.

First of all, the war against terror was approved by Congress. In other words, it wasn't Bush's self-enforced war. As the commander in Chief, Bush had the Constitutional right to mobilize the US Armed Forces, he didn't have the right to go to war without Congress' approval. All Democrat leaders supported it and voted to fund that war as you see in the video above. They also made public speeches condemning Hussein for attempting to build a more deal stockpile of chemical weapons.

Secondly, the intelligence that laid the foundation for the invasion was an inter-nations' effort. There were at least information given to the US government by countries such as UK, France, Germany and even Russia. There were information which pointed to raw materials transported to Iraq from countries in Africa and US and UK feared were brought to Iraq to enriched its nuclear program. If these were flawed intelligent information regarding Iraq's nuclear program, the blame should be shared amongst the Western leaders, not President Bush.

Another reason why blaming the Iraqi war on Bush is unreasonable is that the Bush Administration brought to the UNSC the idea of stopping Hussein from obtaining WMD. The resolution was supported by more than 20 nations including some Middle Eastern nations who were concerned about Hussein's WMD. These nations felt strongly of the danger Iraq posed on the world. France, however, flipped and expressed reservation so were Germany and Russia. After the war, evidence of these countries underground dealings with Hussein surfaced. There are bunkers through out Baghdad that were built by European engineers that were made specifically to protect the Ba'ath Party from Chemical weapons. It is interesting to note that if Hussein never had any stockpile of WMD, there was no need to build a multi-million dollar bunker underground. The sophistication of the bunker meant that Hussein may have planned something bigger only to be stopped.

In addition to that, the Iraqi government under Hussein had already committed atrocity with his WMD. The idea that Iraqi never had any WMD is laughable because Hussein used his chemical weapons against Iran, the Kurds in the North after blaming them for supporting Iran against Iraq in one of the most bloodiest of a wars fought between the two nations, and during the Gulf-war 1 (1990-1991) in Kuwait. The use of Chemical weapons had been well documented by reporters and dissenters themselves, esp. the survivors of the Kurds' massacre. Children, men, women--old and young were disfigured by the Chemical weapons. Many of them died instantly and others escaped with serious injuries. And in 1990 to 1991, the Allied Forces responded to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and pushed Iraq back beyond its border. After weeks and months of fighting, Hussein agreed to surrender. A major part of the agreement was for Hussein to give up information about his Chemical stockpile; Hussein agreed to the terms and the 1st Gulf ended. The UNSC passed the 1441R which Collin Powell explained when making his case before the UN:

The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years. (collin powell)

The UN already had a list of WMD given to them by non other than Hussein. That UNR1441 called for the disarming of Hussein--in other words he was to disarm and then report evidence to the UN. Instead, he defied this resolution for more than a decade and attempted to build more. The saddest thing is that Hussein did all these dirty games under the nose of the UNSC and at a time when the US was headed by a man who was only interested in women, President Clinton. When evidence reached Bush that Hussein was in the process of acquiring more WMDs, Bush didn't instantly go to war, he followed every step necessary to avoid arms confrontation. He went to the US Congress and got the approval, then he approached the UNSC only to be held up by the EU, particularly France. They asked for a revised version of the US resolution, but while the Bush administration was working on it, words from France that it would block the resolution no matter what. This is why the US led what is known as the "coalition of the willing" against Iraq. If Hussein did destroyed his WMD which was agreed on with the UN, he should have produced the evidence. Instead he mocked the US and UK and even called Bush for a public debate.

One thing that Blair alluded to in his book that I think the US government failed to understand is the fact that the foreign nations, especially in Asia and Middle Eastern nation, don't like America. In other words, the American foreign policy is based on a flawed ideology that once they treated Muslims and US enemies nicely they will, in return, respect the US. This, Blair added, doesn't hold waters and no matter how hard the US tries to please the ME, they will continue to dislike America. A good example is the recent killing of American soldiers by an Iraq police officer. Someone they trained, turned around and short two American soldiers. And in the past years, naturalized Americans of ME descents turned against America. This is because the ME is a religiously driven region where government is based on Theocracy and they see America as the greatest enemy. They feel it is their duty to kill the infidels and unbelievers, or Americans and Jews.