October 2003 Archives

Those killed supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Dean Esmay is, alas, annoyed:

I don't know which political BS annoys me more:

1. The notion that the Bush administration ever said that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

2. The notion that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was ever given to the American people as our "primary reason" for invading Iraq, or

3. The notion that the Clinton administration had a plan that the Bush administration ignored to deal with terrorism.

Well, Dean, you sound like a post-modern deconstructionist -- you've busted up the rhetoric into so many tiny pieces that you can finally sweep it all under the rug. To you and yours, everything means something else. As a result, nothing means anything.

Why don't you listen to the President? Here's what Joseph Curl of the Washington Times had to say on October 2, 2002:

President Bush last night said Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is a “murderous tyrant” who could attack the United States “on any given day” using unmanned aerial vehicles loaded with chemical or biological weapons.

"On any given day." Like today. Or tomorrow.

And that wasn't all. On September 21, 2002, Curl wrote this in the Washington Times:

Administration officials have in recent days ratcheted up talk about unilateral U.S. action in the event the United Nations fails to deliver the type of resolution Mr. Bush desires…[S]enior administration officials, including Vice President Richard B. Cheney, have laid out the case for pre-emptive strikes to deal with imminent threats to the United States. [emphasis added.]

Then of course there was the infamous statement: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The Bush administration "never said that Iraq posed an 'imminent threat'?" That is political BS.

(Hat tip to Bob Somerby)

Excerpt from a speech by Sen. Ted Kennedy, as quoted by Anne E. Kornblut of the Boston Globe:

"We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one.

"All the administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as double-talk. The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not."

(hat tip to Busy, Busy, Busy)

This, from Steve Holland at the WaPo:

The White House said on Wednesday that anyone with information about a leak that blew the cover of a CIA officer, whose husband is an Iraq war critic, should report it to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

I dunno, maybe it's too late for this, but where is Chief of Staff Andy Card?

He should be informing everyone in the West Wing that the President expects the leakers to step forward and identify themselves by the end of the day. At that point they should be summarily fired and then turned over to the Justice Department. End of story.

Why should the taxpayers be expected to pay for a long, drawn out investigation?

Is there no loyalty to the President in the White House anymore?

(hat tip to Busy Busy Busy)