Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Mission accomplished?

Post by Judy Hauser on Aug. 19, 2010 at 7:03 pm with 12 Comments »
August 20, 2010 5:16 pm

Now that U.S. combat troops have left Iraq, this might be the perfect moment for our favorite Texas Air National Guard alumnus to dig out that flight suit and get his Top Gun groove back on.

President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, may have been seven years too soon, but how was he to know that the arms of Iraqis wouldn’t be welcoming? And what part of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” didn’t those ungrateful people understand? Did they really think we charged into their country looking for weapons of mass destruction?

As our combat forces leave Iraq, I’d like to give credit where credit is due – not for getting us out of Iraq, but for getting us into Iraq.

Before we blew into Baghdad, a little known group led by Karl Rove, called the White House Iraq Group, met for the sole purpose of selling the impending invasion of Iraq to the American people – mostly by terrifying us.

Who can forget Condi Rice’s brow-furrowed warnings of mushroom clouds, or Dick Cheney’s aluminum-tubes clamor, or Donald Rumsfeld’s “God-knows-what-else-could-be-transpiring-in-that-place” panic attacks?

Protests around the world were muted by Bush’s browbeating reminders of terrorists and their plans to do us in. Protests here at home were met with shouts of anti-patriotism and a mocking of common sense. Verifiable intelligence was tossed aside for vague, forged documents, while seasoned intelligence officers were bypassed for a more agreeable ex-Iraqi politician with an axe to grind against Saddam.

We smoked into Bagdad on swagger, flimsy intelligence and vigilante dreams, not expecting an Iraqi resistance.

“Bring ‘em on,” Bush chided Iraqi insurgents, kicking up the insurgency and slapping bull’s eyes on the backs of our soldiers. Fighting two wars not only stretched our military so thin it wouldn’t cover leftovers from lunch, but with the help of poorly-timed Bush tax cuts for the rich, it turned a stunning budget surplus left by the Clinton administration into a raging deficit.

Where were tea party budget-pinching patriots then? Where were today’s deficit-conscious Republicans when $9 billion of U.S. currency, shipped to the Coalition Provisional Authority and meant for Iraqi reconstruction, was lost and unaccounted for?

Now that our combat troops have left Iraq, a sovereign nation we invaded on a shady sale’s pitch, some “patriots” will no doubt shrug it off as President Bush did when pressed by Diane Sawyer about never finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

“So, what’s the difference?” he shrugged.

The difference is the 4,415 members of the U.S. military killed in Iraq would be living their lives today, and the nearly 32,000 of our wounded would be living without physical injuries or disabilities.

Leave a comment Comments → 12
  1. Zillahboy says:

    I’M WONDERING: IS JUDY HAUSER IS EUGENE ROIBINSON’S PEN NAME? HILLARY CLINTON, COLIN POWELL, AND EVEN JAY ROCKEFELLER WERE CONVINCED THAT iRAQ HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BUT, OF COURSE, JUDY HAUSER’S 20-20 HINDSIGHT VISION HAS REVEALED THAT THEY WERE WRONG.
    SINCE SHE SEEMS TO KNOW EVERYTHING, MAYBE SHE COULD TELL US HOW MANY INNOCENT AMERICANS WOULD HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED IF
    IT IS REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT SHE COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG AND THE NEXT 911 TYPE OF ATTACK WOULD HAVE BEEN OF THE NUCLEAR VARIETY. IF HER GOAL WAS TO SHOW SHOW HOW NAIVE SOME PEOPLE ARE, ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.’

  2. iamjimbo says:

    Judy, there are alot of people that show their ignorance by repeating the “mission accomplished” story… The USS Abraham Lincoln’s “mission” was accomplished and that’s why they were returning home. It also marked the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Heck, Barry just said the last combat troops are coming home, but you can bet there will still be bullets flying from time to time… does that make him a liar?
    .
    “What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
    .
    “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
    .
    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
    .

    “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

  3. iamjimbo says:

    … plenty more where that came from…

  4. sofaloafer says:

    Right on Judy, RIGHT ON!!!

    The fear-mongering republicans say BOO and millions of paranoid citizens start quaking in their shoes… typically short on memory, easily distracted, ready to accept any right-wing lie or conspiracy that comes their way. Rather than look for the truth they willingly accept the rantings of neo-con media (Rupert Murdoch’s empire), Rush Limbaugh, and the like.

    The latest raging regarding the “Ground Zero Mosque” is a good example ‘lies’ to create a distraction. Lie #1 – It is not at “Ground Zero” but is a couple of blocks from the northern edge of the 16 acre site. Lie #2 – It will not be a “Mosque” but a Community Center. The construction will be in a run-down area. The building (and others around it) has been vacant for several years. The ‘new’ building will not be visible from the “Ground Zero Site”. The businesses across the street from the “Ground Zero Site” are porn shops, fast food franchises, tourist shops, etc…. apparently there isn’t a problem with this.
    And all this when there are REAL problems that need to be solved…

    So many people need to wise up and not be such suckers.

  5. iamjimbo says:

    Thanks craftsman.

  6. slasmith says:

    Judy, I expect the misinformation from the usual blogging suspects. However I expect someone who calls themselves a journalist to at least use verified facts to support their opinions. By definition a surplus would mean more money then your spending plus debt. Since the national debt was never zero while Clinton was president there was never a surplus as you claim.

  7. If the democrats WERE that gullible in 2003, how does one know that they are any LESS gullible today? If what lib / progs ( worshiping at the alter of the Un-tied Nations ) were so enamored with the lack of results from the Swedish version of “The Pink Panther” why did they keep lecturing about ( useless)
    sanctions and cry because sanctions don’t work ( like today in Iran) and then wait for someone to save them at the last minute like hmmm, the U.S. in 1991 or as in 1981..Israel. Hindsight by college sociology and poli-sci types is never as convincing as involvement on-location…

  8. Re: GZM- so can sofa guarantee that there will NOT be a mosque within the Victory (Cordoba) House, and will there NOT be an Adnaah, and will there NOT be a zukat collected and will there EVER be an repudiation of Ham-as(s) or do you even understand the words that I’m using….didn’t think so…

  9. iamjimbo says:

    crickets…

  10. scott0962 says:

    I have to wonder, if Al Gore had been in the White house on 9-11 and had a war to fight would he have gone on to be a poster boy for climate change or would he have been content with his legacy as president?

  11. BlaineCGarver says:

    ALL of Iraq was grateful, (maybe not the sunnis) when the butcher Saddam was ousted. The problems that NO one expected were the war(s) over who would be in charge in the butcher’s stead. Maybe if some of you Wacko Lefties were in a position to be fed thru Saddam’s paper shredder or his Son’s pride of lions, or any of the other horrid fates that awaited, you might have a different opinion.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0