Chas' Compilation

A compilation of information and links regarding assorted subjects: politics, religion, science, computers, health, movies, music... essentially whatever I'm reading about, working on or experiencing in life.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

President Bush Didn't Lie. Duh.

This isn't news to me. But to see it explained in detail, in the MSM, especially from a left-leaning source like the L.A. Times, is shocking:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq
[...] Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) It's also worth noting that Weapons of Mass destruction were NOT the ONLY reason for the war. Hussein was destabilizing the region, he was certainly intent on developing WMD's, and by removing him, we got rid of the biggest WMD - himself.

Unfortunately, removing Saddam Hussein also got rid of Iran's biggest enemy in the region. Iran just needs to get rid of the US influence in the region now, so they can annex Iraq and it's oil to fuel their war machine and fund their global ambitions. It's yet another reason why we can't just pull out and leave. Iran is the other half of the equation that still needs to be dealt with.

And yes, we freed up Iraq so it could sell oil on the world market again, making us less dependent on the Saudis. If you think that's a bad thing, then shut up about gas prices. You can't have it both ways. Duh.

The article was written by James Kirchick, who is an assistant editor of the New Republic. There are some criticisms within it about Mitt Romney's father who was governor of Michigan. What's he got to do with it? Read it and find out, if history interests you.
     

Labels: , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home