The whole dang thing comes down to this:
There were some doubts as to what EXACLTY was the status of Saddam's WMD programs. Saddam liked that doubt - it was part of his defense posture meant to keep foes tentative about attacking him.
In the post-9/11 world - Bush was NOT gonna let Saddam have the benefit of the doubt any longer.
The Dems attacking Bush NOW for twisting the WMD intel THEN are using 20/20 HINDSIGHT to say that Bush was not making a mistake (when he argued that Saddam must have WMD's), but a PREMEDITATED EFFORT TO MISLEAD us into war.
Well, apart from the fact that hindsight is always 20/20, it seems IMPOSSIBLE to me that Bush could have misled the world's ENTIRE intel community, (ALL of whom thought Saddam had WMD), or that ANYTHING he said in the SOTU delivered in January 2003 could have misled any Congressman into authorizing the war since they authorized waging war on Saddam in OCTOBER 2002.
On top of that, the Brits have re-examined their intel and determined that the 16 words Bush related in the SOTU are still true; Brit intel MAINTAINS to this day that Saddam SOUGHT uranium in Africa.
In addition, the case for war was NOT limited to a nuclear program or even WMD's; there were a LITANY of reasosn Bush gave OVER AND OVER AND OVER again before Congress gave him authority to wage war on Saddam - and they are ALL listed in the Congressional Joint Res. #141. LOOK IT UP. He also listed them in his speech to the UNGA in September of 2002. Look that up too.
Therefore this whole kerfuffle in the Senate about WMD's and the case for war is STUPID.
ON TOP OF THAT, as Iraq becomes a viable democracy, and as that great accomplishment has a greater positive effect in the entire Middle East (IT ALREADY HAS!), Democrat carping about the war seems even STUPIDER.
The Dems should either ADMIT that if they were in pwer they'd appease every sadistic tyrant - and give them benefit of the doubt, (unless he was a member of the GOP! HEH!), or they should just MOVE ON!
There were some doubts as to what EXACLTY was the status of Saddam's WMD programs. Saddam liked that doubt - it was part of his defense posture meant to keep foes tentative about attacking him.
In the post-9/11 world - Bush was NOT gonna let Saddam have the benefit of the doubt any longer.
The Dems attacking Bush NOW for twisting the WMD intel THEN are using 20/20 HINDSIGHT to say that Bush was not making a mistake (when he argued that Saddam must have WMD's), but a PREMEDITATED EFFORT TO MISLEAD us into war.
Well, apart from the fact that hindsight is always 20/20, it seems IMPOSSIBLE to me that Bush could have misled the world's ENTIRE intel community, (ALL of whom thought Saddam had WMD), or that ANYTHING he said in the SOTU delivered in January 2003 could have misled any Congressman into authorizing the war since they authorized waging war on Saddam in OCTOBER 2002.
On top of that, the Brits have re-examined their intel and determined that the 16 words Bush related in the SOTU are still true; Brit intel MAINTAINS to this day that Saddam SOUGHT uranium in Africa.
In addition, the case for war was NOT limited to a nuclear program or even WMD's; there were a LITANY of reasosn Bush gave OVER AND OVER AND OVER again before Congress gave him authority to wage war on Saddam - and they are ALL listed in the Congressional Joint Res. #141. LOOK IT UP. He also listed them in his speech to the UNGA in September of 2002. Look that up too.
Therefore this whole kerfuffle in the Senate about WMD's and the case for war is STUPID.
ON TOP OF THAT, as Iraq becomes a viable democracy, and as that great accomplishment has a greater positive effect in the entire Middle East (IT ALREADY HAS!), Democrat carping about the war seems even STUPIDER.
The Dems should either ADMIT that if they were in pwer they'd appease every sadistic tyrant - and give them benefit of the doubt, (unless he was a member of the GOP! HEH!), or they should just MOVE ON!
No comments:
Post a Comment