The Unalienable Right
Tuesday - March 28, 2017


« « Democrats vs. Wal-Mart and the L.A. Times | MAIN | Will the press examine their own inadequate response to hurricane Katrina? » »


Debunking the “Bush lied us into war” slander once again

Austin Bay has an excellent post (quoting Tom Nichols) debunking the “Bush lied about Iraqi WMD” slander once again.

This slander, promulgated by so many on the left, from the angry nutroots bloggers up to senior Democratic Party leaders like Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, has been grossly irresponsible, undermining the Commander in Chief with false attacks in the middle of a war. Either these Democrats don’t really believe we are at war, or they don’t care, putting their quest for power above all else. Either way, they cannot be trusted with a majority in Congress in 2006 or with the presidency in 2008.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Bay’s post, quoting Nichols; read the whole thing.

All this talk about “deception” regarding the question of WMD in Iraq has really turned into Monday-morning quarterbacking of the very worst kind. The issue-from the point of view of political decisionmaking and any putative “deception”-is not whether there were WMD in Iraq before the war, or whether we’ll ever find any, but rather whether any reasonable person could have believed that Saddam was hiding WMD and WMD programs in Iraq as late as 2003. The answer to that should be obvious.

The bottom line:

The simple fact of the matter is that it would have imprudent-and just plain dumb-to take on faith Saddam Hussein’s assurances about the destruction of his WMD stocks. He had them, he used them, he claimed to destroy them, but wouldn’t allow anyone to verify that claim. To say now that it should have been obvious in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, given the history of the regime and the behavior of its mad dictator, is not only unsupportable, it is irresponsible, and even borders on silly.

Exactly. A president must make decisions based on the information he has available when the decision is made, not based on any and all information that may come out later. We only know what we know now because President Bush acted, so the Democrats are in effect using (twisting) information the President gave them to (falsely) attack him.

What would a President Gore (shudder) or a President Kerry (shudder) do when their CIA Director told them “it’s a slam dunk” that a terror-sponsoring regime with a history of developing and using WMD is continuing to do so?

Of course the Democrats understand this, they’re simply not being honest about it.



posted by: The Editors @ 9:07 am August 26, 2006



3 Comments

  1. […] The Unalienable Right Bush Clinton Iraq Kerry Nichols WMD Filed in: The Iraqi War, The Clintons | No Comments » […]

    Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Where Is The Common Sense In The Iraqi WMD Debate? — August 26, 2006 @ 2:44 pm August 26, 2006


  2. Some IDIOT Wrote:

    The bottom line:

    The simple fact of the matter is that it would have imprudent–and just plain dumb–to take on faith Saddam Hussein’s assurances about the destruction of his WMD stocks. He had them, he used them, he claimed to destroy them, but wouldn’t allow anyone to verify that claim. To say now that it should have been obvious in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, given the history of the regime and the behavior of its mad dictator, is not only unsupportable, it is irresponsible, and even borders on silly.

    DID YOU FORGET THAT THE U.N SEARCHED IRAQ FOR YEARS AND CONFIRMED
    THAT IRAQ HAD NO WMDs.?

    G W BUSH IS THE REAL TERRORIST HERE! –
    DOES HE HAVE WMDs?
    CAN HE BE TRUSTED?
    HAS HE ORDERED THE SLAYING OF 10,000s INNOCENT IRAQIs?
    DID HE SEND 2500+ US ARMY PERSONAL TO THEIR DEATH?

    OH, AND HAS HE SPENT ALL YOUR MONEY????

    God have mercy on America when 150,000 metally disturbed soliders
    return home

    Then you will see terror.

    Comment by Mike — August 29, 2006 @ 5:32 am August 29, 2006


  3. Mike says, “God have mercy on America when 150,000 metally [sic] disturbed soliders [sic] return home”

    So all our soldiers in Iraq are “metally disturbed [sic]” according to Mike. But the left supports the troops!

    Comment by The Editors — August 29, 2006 @ 7:20 am August 29, 2006


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed for this post.


All comments are moderated, they will not appear immediately. Comments judged by the editors to be obscene, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate will be deleted. Comments will not be deleted because they disagree with the positions of this site. Respectful dissent is encouraged.

The opinions expressed by commenters are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners of this website.