Mark Steyn: The right side of history

The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 03/05/05 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

There is, and you are now on it.

[AFPhys]

Thanks for posting this incredible Steyn insight.

This in all honesty might be the one I use most in days and years to come.
.

[texasbluebell]

Okay, guys, thanks to you both for helping me get to see the first part of this interview!

That was a great hour with Steyn, and I really appreciate the assistance from you!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Another great read....and another thank you for the ping!

[bitt]

another author in agreement with Steyn:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/bushiraq.php
Rewriting History To Attack Bush On Iraq
by John Hawkins

If you picked up a paper in the last week or so, you probably got the impression that George Bush spent a year demanding an Iraqi invasion based on claims that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons with uranium bought in Niger. But now that the war is over, we've found out that it was all a lie & there were never any weapons of mass destruction to begin with. So far, nobody has suggested putting Saddam back in power, apologizing, and sending him a fruit basket, but just give them time.

Of course, that wasn't how it actually happened. While the Bush administration certainly talked extensively about weapons of mass destruction, they also continuously discussed Iraq's breaking of UN Resolutions, freedom for the Iraqi people, and Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda & terrorism. But I'm sure many of Bush's critics were too busy screaming about a "war for oil" & "US imperialism" to pay attention to what the Bush administration was actually saying; so we'll have to forgive them.

However, I want to address these claims that Bush lied in the build-up to the Iraq war. So let's take on the big issues, one by one. First off, Bush certainly said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Here's just one of Bush's quotes on the subject,

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Whoops, I'm sorry! That was actually Bill Clinton in 1998. Gosh, it just sounds so much like what President Bush was saying during the build-up to the Iraqi war that it must have just slipped in. So let's try this again. Here's just one of Bush's quotes on the subject of WMD & Iraq,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Shoot, I did it again. That's actually Hillary Clinton in October of 2002. How did that get in there?

OK, OK...that's enough shenanigans for one editorial. The point is that there was very little dispute between the GOP & Democrats over whether Hussein had WMD or not.

So why haven't we found them already? Since just about everyone expected to have already run across WMD by now, that's hard to say. But that doesn't mean there never were any WMD in Iraq. After all, we haven't found Saddam yet, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. Besides, as I said before the war, every sign points to the fact that Iraq had WMD,

"To come to the conclusion that Hussein doesn't have WMD, you have to believe that after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMD and then decided that he'd lose billions of dollars in oil revenue because of the sanctions rather than tell anyone about it.

Furthermore, Saddam has refused to let his scientists and their families leave the country, defectors have talked about Hussein's WMD, rockets with empty chemical warheads have been found, and the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas. So yes, Saddam does have WMD, and to be honest, that has been patently obvious since the Gulf War."

So where are the weapons? They may still be buried in Iraq, or perhaps they were destroyed before the war, given to Syria or terrorists, looted, or some combination thereof. I still believe we will find WMD in Iraq, but we're just going to have to be patient & see what turns up. ..."

[bitt]

'A couple of years back, I went to hear Paul Wolfowitz. I knew him only by reputation — the most sinister of all the neocons, the big bad Wolfowitz, the man whose name started with a scary animal and ended Jewishly'

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

[Neophyte]

How does a headless chicken squawk?

From the back hole of their body... and it goes not only for the chooks, but for the Left "humans" as well. In fact, they sometimes sound like that even when they're not headless.

[Dutchgirl]

bttt, love the bumper sticker story...

[Billthedrill]

Islamism, with its plans to destroy America, take back Europe, colonise Australia and set you up with 72 virgins, may be bonkers but it’s a big idea. And you can’t beat it with a small, shrivelled idea...

...such as corrupt multinational institutions, incessant negotiation, and parasitical welfare states. But the adherents of those nostrums are far too sophisticated to fall for such simplistic notions as freedom and representative government. They've defined them out of existence, thank you very much.

With hindsight, the fellow travellers were let off far too easily when the Iron Curtain fell like a discarded burka. Little more than a decade later, they barely hesitated a moment before jumping in on the wrong side of history yet again...

...with the same old illusions, the same moral equivalency and obsessive and accusatory approaches to the nation that had held firm during the Cold War. What is most difficult for even some conservatives to come to grips with is that these people really were rooting for the side that lost and continue to work against the side that won. A war won with so little death is a war that leaves a lot of embittered foes alive and functioning. These are not the friendly opposition, they are inveterate and implacable enemies who wish the worst on us. They are Harold Pinter, Jean Baudrillard, Robert Fisk, Hugo Chavez, and Jose Zapatero, and the entire rotten class of followers of a discredited and evil ideology. In a Hot War they'd have been shot, and had they won the Cold War, they'd have seen to it that we were.

[George Smiley]

How about FREE HOLLLYWOOD!

[ntnychik]

I always love a Mark Steyn ping in the evening. Thanks, Meek!

[MeekOneGOP]

You bet. This is a great one, too. Steyn in full glory.

[Rummyfan]

The lesson of these last weeks is that it turns out Washington’s Zionists know the Arab people a lot better than Europe’s Arabists.

Bingo! Thank you Mr Steyn..... may I have another?

[gridlock]

‘FREE [INSERT YOUR FETID TOTALITARIAN BASKET-CASE HERE]’

I have got to get some stickers made up...

[Check_Your_Premises]

"the most sinister of all the neocons, the big bad Wolfowitz, the man whose name started with a scary animal and ended Jewishly"

Reading Mark Steyn has become an exercise where I am looking for little gems like this one, that I think and chuckle about all day.

My favorite one to date is when he described Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac as two men playing a panotmime horse, where both men are the rear end.

If I have another son, I may have to name him Mark.