Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
I voted for W.
Twice.
It's not that I regret having voted for him. I mean, after all, consider the alternatives - Al Gore and John Kerry.
But while I don't regret voting for him, I do regret some of the things he's done while in office.
I suppose the biggest thing I regret is what's happened to U.S. foreign policy.
I think these years will go down in history as some of the worst ever for U.S. foreign policy.
And the thing is, after Sept. 11, 2001, we had the whole world on our side.
Everybody felt sorry for us. Everybody wanted to help us. Money and moral support flowed into the U.S.
Today, we are pretty much universally hated around the world. We're viewed around the world as imperialist bullies. We've squandered all the good will.
That's more than a little unsettling to me.
When we determined that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11, the world was still behind us.
When we rooted the Taliban out of Afghanistan because they were harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, the world was still behind us.
Then there was Iraq.
It has become the top reason for the large and growing world angst directed at the U.S. No one could argue that W's policy goal - a flourishing, peaceful democracy in Iraq - is not worthy.
It is a worthy goal, but at this point, I think its achievability is virtually nil.
Of course, I can be accused of writing this with the crystal clarity of hindsight at my disposal. But that's not 100 percent fair to me because I believe I was misled quite a bit with regard to this issue.
It's widely known now that during the runup to the invasion of Iraq, evidence of weapons of mass destruction was greatly exaggerated.
I think I - and most everyone else - would have had a quite different view of the invasion if we had known the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate - the report that justified the invasion - was largely bogus.
I was always a bit skeptical of the whole thing and I didn't think we should have invaded without full U.N. support.
Here's what I wrote on Sept. 7, 2002.
... I know what the government tells us. I know Saddam is a bad man. But I just have a hard time swallowing the concept that some sort of big bomb event perpetrated by Iraq is imminent.
And I really don't think we should attack Iraq without the blessing of the U.N. and the support of the vast majority of our allies - including the ones in the Arab world.
And on Dec. 30, 2002:
... But some of these W policies really have me scratching my head. It's like the U.S. is trying to enrage half the planet.
I fully support the "hunt-down-al-Qaida" policy. Yeah, let's do that. That's just fine. And frankly, most other nations are OK with that policy, too, including Arab nations. They're even arresting and detaining some of those al-Qaida guys.
But I have a tough time swallowing the "run-Saddam-out-of-Iraq" policy. I really don't see the two as the same thing.
Of course, after the invasion - or liberation, as the administration likes to call it - I felt compelled to get on board and support the troops.
I rationalized the policy by thinking that the world would be a better place with Saddam out of power.
And it's difficult to argue that a flourishing democracy in Iraq would somehow be a bad thing for the Middle East. The problem is not the goal of policy, it's the implementation and the unintended consequences of the policy that are so grievous.
I believe that our presence in Iraq has enraged and emboldened terrorists.
Seems to me they're more determined than ever to strike out at us.
I wonder if Hezbollah would have started lobbing rockets into Israel if we didn't have troops in Iraq?
The two could be completely disconnected. But I think lots of people in the Arab world perceive the U.S. as an unyielding ally of Israel.
And they hate Israel.
Iran's president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran is a supporter of Hezbollah.
Here's what the Iranian president had to say about Israel recently, gleaned from english.aljazeera.net:
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world. ... The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land ... As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come ... The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centered on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam."
Aljazeera says the term "oppressor" is used by the clerical government to refer to the United States.
The president continues: "Anyone who signs a treaty which recognizes the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world. ... Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognize Israel face the wrath of their own people."
People like Ahmadinejad - who by the way, wants to get himself a nuclear weapon or two - also hate the fact that we - the oppressors, the infidels, the Great Satan - invaded an Arab nation.
Does this guy sound like someone who will sit down and negotiate? Are we going to have to invade Iran next? Where does this policy end?
And is it a stretch to assume that Hezbollah leaders would consider firing rockets into Israel as a poke in the eye to the U.S. as well?
Yes, Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East certainly is a worthy goal. But the more I watch what's going on in over there, the more it becomes clear to me that seeing that goal as attainable borders on delusional.
