I remember spending countless hours discussing the Iraq War with Republicans, both before and after the invasion was launched.
Republicans argued fiercely that invading Iraq was the right course of action in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. Their battle cry was that "we have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."
They insisted that Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. If we didn't act now, they claimed, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would unleash a wave of nuclear terror in the region and beyond.
I argued that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and that it would send a bad precedent to invade a sovereign nation based on dubious intelligence reports. That position was not well-received.
"Traitor!" That was one of the many colorful accusations hurdled in my direction. "Terrorist sympathizer! Why do you hate America? Why do you hate the troops?" I endured this rabid invective for years simply by trying to bring a voice of reason to casual conversations about public policy.
--
My, how things have changed!
Last night, Donald Trump, media darling and the leading Republican candidate for President, gave his brutal assessment of the Iraq war. "It was a big, fat mistake."
Clearly, Trump was trying to hammer John Ellis Bush, fellow candidate and favorite Trump whipping boy. Trump could not have been more blunt in disparaging the Presidential record of Bush's brother.
"There were no weapons of mass destruction. They lied about it."
Wow! What I would have given to hear a Republican say those words eight or ten or twelve years ago! (To be fair, Ron Paul said the same thing in the 2008 debates. He was booed mercilessly.)
Trump, on the other hand, isn't a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. He's the front runner and has been since he announced his candidacy last June. This tells me that a considerable portion of the Republican electorate no longer buys into the Bush-Cheney version of Middle Eastern history - or their rush to war based on widely-disputed premises.
Establishment Republicans, like Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, still stand steadfastly behind the Bushes. But things are changing in this country. There is a stark philosophical divide in the Republican party between the traditional platform (business deregulation, interventionist policies with huge military budgets) and the more socially conservative, isolationist policies of the Tea Party.
Look for more sparks to fly up to the point where the party names a nominee - and beyond.
Copyright © 2016 Daniel R. South
All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.