Replies

Thanks, Pokey! Classic Mark Steyn! Great article.
Mark Steyn: The right side of history
Excerpt:

The other day in the Guardian Martin Kettle wrote: ‘The war was a reckless, provocative, dangerous, lawless piece of unilateral arrogance. But it has nevertheless brought forth a desirable outcome which would not have been achieved at all, or so quickly, by the means that the critics advocated, right though they were in most respects.’
Very big of you, pal. And I guess that’s as close to a mea culpa as we’re going to get: even though Bush got everything wrong, it turned out right. Funny how that happens, isn’t it? In a few years’ time, they’ll have it down pat — just like they have with Eastern Europe. Oh, the Soviet bloc [the Middle East thugocracies] was bound to collapse anyway. Nothing to do with that simpleton Ronnie Raygun [Chimpy Bushitler]. In fact, all Raygun [Chimpy] did was delay the inevitable with his ridiculous arms build-up [illegal unprovoked Halliburton oil-grab], as many of us argued at the time: see my 1984 column ‘Yuri Andropov, The Young, Smart, Sexy New Face Of Soviet Communism’ [see the April 2004 Spectator column ‘Things Were Better Under Saddam: The coalition has destroyed Baathism, says Rod Liddle, and with it all hopes of the emergence of secular democracy’ — and yes, that really ran in these pages, on 17 April, not 1 April.]
By the way, when’s the next Not In Our Name rally? How about this Saturday? Millions of Nionists can flood into Trafalgar Square to proclaim to folks in Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority that all the changes under way in the region are most certainly Not In Their Name. Among the celebrity Nionists, Harold Pinter should be available to denounce Blair as a ‘war criminal’ and a ‘hired Christian thug’ one mo’ time. For as the Guardian reported this week, the great man announced that ‘he has decided to abandon his career as a playwright in order to concentrate exclusively on politics’.
That’s great news, isn’t it? One of the reasons Mr Pinter was right only ‘in most respects’ (as Martin Kettle would put it) is that he had to fit being right about everything in between composing 11-minute plays. Now he can devote his energies to it full time I’ve no doubt he’ll be right in all respects.
As for me, I got a lot of things wrong these last three years, but, looking at events in the Middle East this last week, I’m glad that, unlike the Nionist Entity, I got the big stuff right. On 8 May 2003, a couple of weeks after the fall of Saddam, I wrote in the Speccie’s then sister paper the Jerusalem Post:
‘You don’t invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don’t have to invade everywhere else.’
And so it’s turned out.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

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. ..."