Tuesday, November 15, 2005

No One Says it Like Hitchens

You do not want to be on the other side of an argument with this guy. As the moonbats leading the "Bush Lied Us Into War" crowd now is. Decision08 had this up yesterday and I am remiss for not reading and posting it sooner.

So which is it moonbats are you really as stupid as you claim to be or just disingenuous scoundrels who are so fillied with irrational hate for George Bush that you are willing to do anything including lying about something as serious as a war that over 2,000 brave men and women of this country have died in.

Shame on you.

I now give you Mr. Hitchens in all his literary glory:

What do you have to believe in order to keep alive your conviction that the
Bush administration conspired to launch a lie-based war? As with (I admit) the
pro-war case, the ground of argument has a tendency to shift. I saw two examples
in Washington last week. An exceptionally moth-eaten and shabby picket line
outside Ahmad Chalabi's event on Wednesday featured a man with a placard
alleging that Bush had prearranged the 9/11 attacks. I know a number of left and
right anti-warriors who have flirted with this possibility but very few who
truly believe it. (Even Gore Vidal, who did at one point insinuate the idea, has
recently withdrawn it, if only on the grounds of the administration's
incompetence.)

But then there is the really superb pedantry and literal-mindedness on
which the remainder of the case depends. This achieved something close to an
apotheosis on the front page of the Washington Post on Nov. 12, where Dana
Milbank and Walter Pincus brought complete gravity to bear. Is it true, as the president claimed in his Veterans Day speech, that Congress saw the same intelligence sources before the war, and is it true that independent commissions have concluded that there was no willful misrepresentation? Top form was reached on
the inside page:

But in trying to set the record straight, [Bush] asserted: "When I made
the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with
strong bipartisan support." The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the
use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein
from power.

A prize, then, for investigative courage, to Milbank and Pincus. They
have identified the same problem, though this time upside down, as that which
arose from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, during the Clinton-Gore
administration, in 1998. That legislation—which passed the Senate without a
dissenting vote—did expressly call for the removal of Saddam Hussein but did not
actually mention the use of direct U.S. military force.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home