Thursday, September 23, 2004

From the web site Republicans for Humility (don't laugh, apparently the words "Republican" and "Humility" can still coexist):

Since 2002, policies which a number of key officials in the Bush administration have advocated since prior to the 2000 election, have received increased attention. Notable is the advocacy of preemptive war, an emphasis on unilateral rather that multilateral warfare, and an insistence on American dominance throughout all regions of the world, space, and cyberspace. This aggressively interventionist foreign policy is alien to the beliefs of many conservatives, who would consider such policies threatening if they were the held by an ally.

While the Bush Doctrine of preemption sharply contrasts with the "more humble" foreign policy publicly advocated in 2000 by presidential candidate Bush, who repeatedly promised to avoid the interventionist "nation building" exploits of his predecessor, it has a developmental history going back to at least the early 1990's.

Although aggressively interventionist policies conflict with the values of many traditional, small-government conservatives, many supported the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of disarming Saddam Hussein.

The failure to find expected weapons of mass destruction has been disturbing for many who supported the invasion for this purpose. Moreover:

* as the stated mission of the war was re-defined from the more specific goal of disarming Saddam Hussein into that of "creating democracy" in Iraq, with an indeterminate exit strategy,
* as increasing majorities of the "liberated", both Sunni and Shiite, have pronounced us to be unwelcome occupiers,
* as promises to bring our troops home promptly upon completion of our specific mission has given way to the prospect of a perpetual occupation,
* as the "occupation" has been re-defined by the Administration as having "ended" even as troop deployments are increasing and as 14 "enduring bases" are under construction,

many of these former supporters of the invasion have questioned the true intentions of our political leadership.

The site lists MANY examples of Bush's hogwash rhetoric -- and then reality (again pointing out how much this administration, and apparently half of the American public, lives in the world of fantasy). Here's a few:


"...captive people have greeted American soldiers as liberators. And there is good reason. We have no territorial ambitions, we don't seek an empire."

George W. Bush, November 11, 2002

“We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire.”

George W. Bush, January 20, 2004

"....we have no interest in occupation.”

George W. Bush, May 24, 2004


"2% of Iraqis View the US as Liberators, 97% as Occupiers", poll commissioned by the U.S. appointed Coalition Provisional Authority

"14 “Enduring Bases” Set in Iraq", Christine Spolar, Chicago Tribune, March 23, 2004

"Behind the Scenes, US Tightens Grip on Iraq's Future" – Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004

All is not lost when it comes to at least a few Republicans.

No comments: