Posted on 06/19/2006 2:51:21 PM PDT by neverdem
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
During last week's congressional debate over the war in Iraq, critics of the Bush administration's policy made three arguments: that President Bush more or less lied when claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that no progress is being made in the war there. All three assumptions rest on shaky ground, so it is remarkable how much critics have seized on them with such fervor and certainty--the very vices of which they accuse the war's supporters. Indeed, one wonders how Democrats would react if real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, say the discovery of chemical weapon shells, surfaced. Would they step back and re-evaluate their assumptions, or would they accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence as part of a Karl Rove-inspired pre-election dirty trick? Far from politics ending at the water's edge, today's partisan battles seem to take on added ferocity when they concern foreign policy.
Let's examine the three assumptions critics of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy make:
Bush lied about Saddam being a threat. Both the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the independent Silberman-Robb Commission found not one case in which Bush officials, quoting the Senate committee, "attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Recall that both the French and German intelligence agencies also believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Just two months before the war, the Los Angeles Times reported that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix "disclosed troubling new details about Iraq's weapons programs and expressed frustration with what he described as Baghdad's refusal to resolve long-standing questions about efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, as well as long-range missiles." Mr. Blix later...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
bump for later
Good article...thanks for posting.
This pretty much spells out the idiocy of the dems...
BUT, unfortunately, was written before today's idiocy re: the new bills the dems are planning to introduce this week.
I don't understand people like Fund. They engage in theoretical discussions about whether Hussein was a threat and then completely ignore the fact that Hussein was routinely firing missiles at our pilots in the leadup to the war. Shouldn't Hussein's firing of literally thousands of missiles at our pilots end the discussion as to whether he was a threat to us?
Betting on failure....now there's a way to win the hearts and minds of the American public.
Levin's is bad, Kerry's will be worse. But we all knew, didn't we, that they would ramp up their defeatist efforts when the progress in Iraq became so undeniably clear.
Is it just me or do Dems. want the US to lose in Iraq more than Al Qaeda does??
I don't comment on specifics of the no fly zones for security reasons, but I was there and you are right.
"0Is it just me or do Dems. want the US to lose in Iraq more than Al Qaeda does??"
Both groups want us to lose for political reasons.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
From Fox News July, 2004
"We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece," Dukaczewski said. "An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads."
Dukaczewski refused to give any further details about the terrorists or the sellers of the munitions, saying only that his troops thwarted terrorists by purchasing the 17 rockets for a Soviet-era launcher and two mortar rounds containing the nerve agent [Sarin] for an undisclosed sum June 23.
WMDs were found, so the goal post was moved to say no stockpiles were found. I am still waiting for a response to the first italicized excerpt.
I think you are right. It is impossible to justify why they are doing this. Either someone thinks it is a winning stategy or they are so committed to the anti-war faction of the party that they will come home on their shields ("There, we died for ya.").
It has often been said that orientals, arabs (fill in the blank) "don't think like us". I'm beginning to believe that red staters and blue staters are two separate species!
Just remember, the ThugoRat moron traitors are never wrong. They will spin reality into a Star Wars episode. They are sick with negativism, hate, defeatism, and the fact they are so screwed up, they cannot get back into power. Let them keep showing their hate and traitorous behavior against America -- they will pay big in the upcoming elections as polls are already showing...
They would accuse Bush/Rove of planting it
The dems ALWAYS over reach
Well it was very apparent that the Kurds just fell down and died for no apparant reason, other than to further humiliate Saddam, The Hustler, Hussein. Or maybe they inflicted the chemicals on themselves and got a Kodak to remember the moment. (heavy sarcasm)
I agree! I think I relate to Arabs more than I relate to blue staters frankly! At least Arabs agree with me that when you fight a war you fight it to the finish and you fight it to win (even though Arabs rarely win wars.) Democrats don't seem to understand that notion.
No it's not just you
Only the Dems would want to pull out when we are winning the war
My question is .. why do they hate America so much that they would allow our country to be brought down to our knees by the Terrorists
If we pulled out of this War .. No Country and I repeat .. No Country would ever take us seriously again
Bring it on Dems, choose your weapons, just like 2004. We have O so much ammo.
No Country would ever take us seriously again.
The Democrats think that defeat in Iraq will reflect only on the Republicans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.