Back in 2003, when the president had the overwhelming support from Congress and the American people to invade Iraq, what exactly did the people think they were supporting?
Was it a protracted quagmire with a shelf life of 10-15 years at the current rate of $1 billion per week or was it something not quite as long and expensive?
Because if you are, or were in the past, a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, the thought of being there another decade at a cost of $1 billion per week must be the greatest of all sticker shocks. This does not take into account the human capital that would be required for such an undertaking. What price could we possibly place on that?
And to hear the president and his supporters talk about the war; one would think they have become victims of a drug induced alternate reality. I wonder does the president really believe what he is saying or does he just assume that we are hopelessly obtuse?
Consider the following exchange a between member of the White House Press Corps and the president during last week's press conference:
President Bush: "The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East."
Question: "What did Iraq have to do with that?"
President Bush: "What did Iraq have to do with what?"
Question: "The attack on the World Trade Center?"
President Bush: "Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case."
Nothing? Did I miss something or was there not an effort by the White House to link Saddam to 9/11. I am certain the "nothing" revelation was news to a number of military families who thought that Saddam's 9/11 involvement was, in part, the reason they were in Iraq. How did a majority of the American people, nearly 7 out of 10 by September 2003, reach the conclusion that Saddam was involved?
Lest we forget that the vice president, making the case for an Iraq and al Qaeda connection, and by extension Saddam, stated on Meet the Press: "We learn more and more there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."
Perhaps the president is correct in that he never suggested that Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks, but his attempt to become wordsmith-in-chief falls short of reality.
Outside of removing Saddam from power, which was never in doubt, what part of this effort has gone well? The pre-war argument was severely flawed, the primary reason for invading varied, the strategy for victory was poor, and the tactics were abominable.
Why then is it acceptable that someone else's father, mother, son, or daughter continue risking their lives for something that only 30 percent of the American people support?
If the president, by his own admission, says that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and now 51 percent, according the latest CBS/New York Times poll believe Iraq is separate from the war on terror, why are we there? How many armchair quarterbacks or elected officials running for office are willing to advocate that that our troops remain in harm's way for a cause that is equally flawed morally as it is in its implementation?
If we stay the course, as the president suggests, the estimation that our troops will be in Iraq for 10-15 years at $1 billion per week represents the best-case scenario. The worst case would be if another "Saddam" sprouts up and curtails the civil war by galvanizing the Iraqi people around the notion that U.S. troops are the enemy they have in common.