G
gilliam
Guest
On political amnesia
Further to this earlier post, I try to refresh the memory of people whose memories need refreshing that those who spoke in support of the Iraq war before the Iraq war did not speak only of WMD and the terrorist threat; they also spoke of the human rights dimension and of regime change for democratization. …
Here is President George Bush in October 2002:
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
For Bush and Blair these may have been secondary arguments; for others of us they were always the main argument. Secondary or primary, they were not merely post facto.
Read it all here:
normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/02/on_political_am.html
Further to this earlier post, I try to refresh the memory of people whose memories need refreshing that those who spoke in support of the Iraq war before the Iraq war did not speak only of WMD and the terrorist threat; they also spoke of the human rights dimension and of regime change for democratization. …
Here is President George Bush in October 2002:
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
For Bush and Blair these may have been secondary arguments; for others of us they were always the main argument. Secondary or primary, they were not merely post facto.
Read it all here:
normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/02/on_political_am.html