Hitchens: Are you sure you want to keep saying we were fooled by Ahmad Chalabi and the INC?

Slate.com ^ | November 14, 2005 | Christopher Hitchens

[Senator Goldwater]

But in trying to set the record straight, [Bush] asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.

[Senator Goldwater]

"By the same alchemy and hypnotism, the INC was able to manipulate the combined intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, as well as the CIA, the DIA, and the NSA, who between them employ perhaps 1.4 million people, and who in the American case dispose of an intelligence budget of $44 billion, with only a handful of Iraqi defectors and an operating budget of $320,000 per month. That's what you have to believe."

Nobody wears out the Left like Hitchens.

[RobFromGa]

excellent essay by Hitchens....

[Marine_Uncle]

Yet another well articulated article that disposes the crap that the administration somehow deceived the congress and population.

[stylin19a]

Nice tease with the excerpt.

[D-fendr]

Excellent excellent article.

thanks for posting

[kellynla]

BTTT

[pgkdan]

Excellent piece. Hitchens may be a pink blooded scialist but he can really stick it to the left like no one else when it comes to the war on terror. He knows their lexicon, their tactics and their strategy...that's what makes reading him so much fun.

[jpf]

Hitchens wields a laptop like a razor. Even when I disagree with him I can't but admire his ability to build a logical argument step by step.

Sadly, few people bother to do that any more.

[Eagles6]

Nice one to stuff in the pocket of fools. The dems have now crossed the line. They are now commiting full blown, out and out treason.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

bttt

[ocr1]

ping

[NYpeanut]

bump for later

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It sometimes seems that they are actually nostalgic for the same period, when Saddam Hussein was running Iraq, and there were no coalition soldiers to challenge his rule, and when therefore by definition there was peace, and thus things were more or less OK.

Seems? No they actually are nostalgic for it. No seems about it.

It is a lot easier and more profitable in the short term just to BLOCK something then to actually DO something.

Of course that means that no progress ever gets made. But it is easy.

And it likely would have continued to be the course except for the rather rude wake up call one Tuesday morning. Blocking threats may be easier and more profitable, but if it fails even one time you have a huge disaster. Better to actually do something about the threat even if it is messier and more expensive in the short term.

[Alia]

Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.

lol. Yes, we do.

[Senator Goldwater]

The Left's definition of peace is the absence of conflict, when in fact, the real definition of peace is the irrevocable defeat of our enemies.

Which includes the Left at this point.