www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160556,00.html
LINKS We have clearly entered a new phase of our involvement in Iraq public o pinion is turning against the administration and the president will be d evoting a good bit of his time trying to convince the American public th at our policy should not change. This is the right time to take a close look at myths and realities about Iraq.
search) on two separate occasions: In 19 91 when Bush 41 was president and in 2002 when Bush 43 sought congressio nal approval to launch the current military campaign.
search), in one of hi s last interviews before leaving office, made it clear that Saddam was n ot involved in Sept. Additionally, we thoroughly searched Iraq for w eapons of mass destruction and could not find any. The administration is now justifying our involvement in Iraq on the basis of nation-building (democratization) something President Bush derided during the 2000 cam paign. Myth: We did not need a large occupying force after initial combat.
search) said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in Marc h of 2003 that it was inaccurate to say that we would need several hundr ed thousand troops in Iraq after military operations ceased.
Reality: Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki had told Congress that we would need a force of at least 200,000 to occupy Iraq. Shinseki, who had been responsible for our successful peacekeeping effort in Bosn ia, was correct. By not committing enough troops to Iraq, we were unable to seal the borders and this made it possible for foreign terrorists to enter the country and help launch the current waves of attacks against our military. Reality: Democrats first proposed the new Department of Homeland Security and strongly supported our efforts against terrorists in Afghanistan, w here Usama bin Laden was believed to be hiding after Sept. A signifi cant number of Democrats voted to authorize force against Saddam, and De mocrats have overwhelmingly voted to fund our efforts in both Iraq and A fghanistan. Myth: There is a partisan divide over our policy in Iraq, with Democrats opposing the president and Republicans supporting him. Reality: A number of Democrats have raised questions about whether the ad ministration has a clear plan for future involvement in Iraq, but leadin g Democrats are not calling for unconditional withdrawal. For example, former President Clinton has opposed a hard-and-fast timetab le for withdrawal. And now some Republicans are raising serious question s about the wisdom of Bush's approach. Walter Jones, R-NC, has ca lled for a specific timetable for withdrawal, starting in October of 200 6 Sen. There is no question that Saddam w as a tyrant and that the Middle East is better off with him no longer in power. Also, a democratic Iraq could have a real impact on the future o f the entire Middle East. If nation-building (democratization) had been the administration's real objective from the beginning, it should have l eveled with the American public at the outset rather than relying on now -discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi involvement in Sept. The American public is perfectly capable of dealing with the truth. The B ush administration needs to level with the public about the difficulty o f the job ahead in Iraq rather than making general statements indicating that all is well. We will stay the course in Iraq if the country is con vinced that Bush has a realistic plan for the future. Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position fo r House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressi onal Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX Ne ws Channel. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.
|
http://csua.com/feed/