Critics of the War -- And Their False Charges

Wall Street Journal thru FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE.com ^ | August 13, 2003 | Vin Weber

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

8 Unapologetically Pro-Coalition News Links and Articles

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

If you want off or on my pro-Coalition/anti-wanker ping ling, just ping.

[facedown]

BTTT

[ex-snook]

"The Bush case for going into Iraq was based largely on findings of U.N. and International Atomic Energy "

Revisionist? The UN did not approve of war.

[Old Sarge]

Thank you, RC, for the ping.

It all comes down to one simple thing: Democrats Hate George W. Bush.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

No, but the more reasonable Bush Admin used UN reports along with "reams and reams and reams" of documented evidence of Saddam's evildoing to remove him from power for once and for all.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Bingo.

The Dems do things like releasing a brand new terrorist report 10 days before a new President is inaugerated and publishing the article 2 days after he's in office.

Iraq Rebuilt Weapons Factories, Officials Say - New York Times - 1/22/01

---

  ...One morning at the nub end of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton chief of staff John Podesta walked into a senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room waving a copy of USA Today. Holding the paper aloft, Podesta read the headline out loud, "Clinton actions annoy Bush." The article detailed the new rules and Executive Orders the outgoing President was issuing in his final days, actions aimed in equal measure at locking in Clinton's legacy...and bedeviling his successor. "What's Bush so annoyed about?" Podesta asked with a devilish smile. "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." ~  Link.

"We laid a few traps," chirps a happy Clinton aide.....

[Political Junkie Too]

Being a Democrat means never having to remember what you said yesterday.

-PJ

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Excellent Read PING

Thanks Ragtime Cowgirl !

[HISSKGB]

That is good.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Read this early this AM....great post for a good article.

[alloysteel]

Start from one premise, and reason all your arguments backward. The premise: Bush is not the legitimate President. Therefore, every action he takes is without any mandate, and must be resisted in any manner possible. Any rationalization that Bush uses to justify his actions, can only be lies, by definition.

For a certain minority of persons born in this country, claiming citizenship as a birthright, and a smaller minority of those who have established residency here, and eventually gained citizenship, this is their sincere belief, and no amount of logical argument will dislodge this fixed idea.

Never mind that the reasons enumerated for taking up arms and marching to Baghdad included humanitarian and strategic considerations, relating to the very nature of the Saddam Hussein regime. These critics have latched onto one of the less important reasons cited for making a pre-emptive strike, that Saddam had in his possession weapons that could render extreme harm upon civilian populations, not for military advantage, but purely to spread terror in the target area. As it happened, these weapons were not deployed in the course of hostilities, but were apparently hidden for later use by guerrilla fighters. Because these terror weapons were NOT found, the argument goes, the whole invasion of Iraq was totally illegitimate. And if the invasion was illegitimate, then Bush's Presidency is illegitimate.

Maybe the US as a whole could do a recall election on the Presidency like they are doing in California.

[SAMWolf]

Bump!

[rdb3]

Revisionist? The UN did not approve of war.

How on earth did you read the article and come up with this statement? It did not say that the U.N. approved the war. U.N. findings and U.N. approval are two entirely different things.

[Radix]

I do not care 1 bit about what the UN, Democrats, or the liberal media have to say about anything. They are about as reliable as the PLO and the absurd promises that are always made concerning the peace process.

I often wonder just who these institutions think that they are talking to. Anyone who would listen to or heed them is obviously too stupid in the first place to be taken seriously.

[CWOJackson]

Excellent story...thanks much.

[meenie]

Seems to me both sides fought to a draw. They need to share the liars cup and get ready for the competition next year.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[driftless]

The hilarious thing about it (tragic though for the country) is that Dems like Kerry etal are such stinking hypocrites. They all enthusiastically supported Clinton when he passed the bill to dethrone Hussein in '98. Of course they all (except for Lieberman) have a case of political amnesia. They should do what Lieberman does which is just to say that he can do what Bush is doing much better. Kerry and Lieberman know that to follow the paths of Dean and Gephardt would be sheer disaster. Clinton knew that in "92 which is why he ran his campaign of ostensibly trying to out-Republcan the Republicans. His stealth campaign of creeping liberalism was well camouflaged. They should do the same to have a chance. But at least quit being such unbelievable hypocrites.

[VOA]

bump