"But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?"
Well it would be Mark, except that to believe Bush is "right" about Iraq, you have to have at least a passing memory of the several versions of the facts he and his minions have presented the American People and then allow that it is true.
Here are just a few:
1. Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD that could be deployed in as little as 45 minutes using unmanned drones to attack US shores.
2. Iraq had recently purchased yellow-cake uranium from Niger that could be used to build a nuclear centrifuge.
3. Iraq was in violation of the UN security council's resolution 1441 which needed to be enforced even if that same body was an inconsequential bunch of liars and cheaters.
4. The people of Iraq were simply begging us to go there and liberate them, and would welcome us with flowers.
5. Ahmed Chalabi (remember him?) had given us credible intelligence and therefore should serve as the interim Priminister.
6. Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the whole operation.
7. Saddam and Al Qaeda were both responsible for 9/11.
8. The armed forces are prepared to fight this conflict -and even if they aren't "you go to war with the army you have".
Don't at least several of the above reasons need to be true for Bush to be "right all along" about Iraq?
Or does it only take one weasely "liberal"'s second guessing himself for neocons to be "right"?
Posts
