June 17, 2004

Why Bush Has Failed Even Conservatives

Readers of his blog will notice that in the 15 months since the Bush Administration took the "War on Terrorism" to Iraq, my views have changed, roughly in proportion to the failure of proof of any of the real, near-term justifications -- WMDs, chem-bio weapons, harboring Al Qaeda, etc. -- for launching a preemptive invasion in the first place. I am certainly not alone in this position. Andrew Sullivan, host of Deep Dish, has this to say:

Am I the only one who is far less enthusiastic about Bush's war leadership now than I was a year ago? I supported the war in Afghanistan and Iraq; I support pre-emption as a policy; I believe in taking the fight to the Jihadists at every possible opportunity. But hasn't the last year changed things somewhat? From the fall of Baghdad on, we have seen little but setbacks. Our goals in Iraq now are limited to making the place less dangerous and oppressive than it was under Saddam. If a Democrat had this record, do you think National Review would let it pass?

Right on, Andrew; you are not alone. If America is going to act unilaterally, we've got to be sure that the target is a "clear and present" danger not only to our own security interests, but those of the world in general. All that the War in Iraq has done is to squander the good will engendered by 9/11, provide a breeding ground for terrorism and make a mockery of American resolve by the equivocating and back-sliding on unilateralism itself.

There may not be a next time, but if there is America needs to act right, act fast and not overplay its hand. The Bushies were so intent on taking out Saddam Hussein that they broke all of these elementary rules. The irony is that Bush will probably win against John Kerry, if only because Kerry himself projects the same equivocation that Bush now epitomizes. So if the choice is between two wafflers, why should anyone really care?

 Posted by glenn

Comments