UPDATE: Stalin and Unknown Agree, sort of...
Earlier, Mr. Malone said, " The purpose of using Clinton's words (and the words of all Democrats) is to show the complete hollowness of the "Bush lied to take us to war" charge. We generally agree here. I think many Dems voted for the war and failed at their duty because they were afraid to look weak and get the Sam Cleeland treatment. Personally, I think most of them voted for the war but did not believe the arguments, and looked the other way at intelligence inconsistencies because they lacked the courage to stand up and question the war. This was Kerry's biggest problem. He could not come out aggressive against a war he didn't support (I believe) because he made a political vote for it. Putting politics above conviction is what killed the Dems, and they continue to be trapped in the same dilemma. I agree with Mr. Malone that it is "hollow." But not because what is now coming out is without merit, but because at the "stand-up and be counted" moment, the Dems pulled the nifty trick of standing up because they cowed down.
There are two types of courage. The courage to fight and the courage not to. It's the middle ground where cowards dwell.
Posts
1 comment:
We also agree that Miller Light tastes great! But it's so darn filling.
Yes, the Dems absolutely supported the war to attempt to win the presidential election. But they were undermined but what they really are...doves. "Dove" is not an insult, but it is a failed outlook given our current world situation. If the doves regain power, God help us all.
I beleive all criticism of Bush for acting on intelligence that was not perfect is hollow. That includes the charges leveled by the great minds of Hydrablog. It would have been irresponsible to NOT act on the information that the world intelligence community had regarding the threat posed by Saddam. Especially given what we knew (and know). Here is a small slice:
-Saddam had chemical weapons and used them.
-Abdul Rahman Yasin, a fugitive from the '93 World Trade Center attack fled to Iraq with Iraqi assistance.
-Saddam met with and gave safe haven to al Qaeda figures. And in 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence Service listed Osama Bin Laden as an asset with whom they had good relations.
-The NSA reported in 2002 that Saddam was providing safe haven to al Qaeda along with weapons and money.
-The reason we bombed the chemical plant in the Sudan in 1998 was because the presence of Iraqi chemists told us it was a weapons facility and not a civilian facility as the Sudanese claimed.
-Saddam violated the UN sanctions imposed on him by the "international community" repeatedly and showed no sign of ever complying. These violations included rebuilding is military capability.
The charges of bad intelligence consist of claiming that the attempted procurement of Uranium in Niger by Saddam never happened(a charge that has not been proven)and the conclusion that Iraq possessed WMDs at the time of the invasion was false (this appears to be true).
To conclude that an honest reading of all the intelligence would never lead one to believe an invasion of Iraq was justified is simply absurd.
Post a Comment