The
definitive piece on the case for the Iraq War by Norman Podhoretz in Commentary Magazine.
I submit this to my anti-war friends so that they might repudiate the arguments Podhoretz makes. I have been making the same arguments for over two years now.
5 comments:
IMO once again the wingnuts and moonbats have managed to distort this issue.
Please note I'm not particularly anti war, I was even hopeful once. But the right managed to suppress criticism and reform of the process as problems started to develop arguing that all was done perfectly.
In regards to the issue that yoou currently brought up. Yes many intelligent people believed in WMD. And it is likely Bush and the administration were sincere in their beliefs.
However the problem is not whether they were right or wrong, or whether they lied or didn't but whether the "bureacracy" was distorted to encourage the information they liked. If those at the top of these institutions were to blame then they are culpable, but there is lots of evidence and not just the recent comments of Colonel Wilkerson to suggest the adminisdtration encouraged it.
In a similar way they humiliated the chairman of the joint chiefs because they didn't like his numbers on necessary troops which were considerably less than plans coming from the military sugegested. Lindsay was disgraced and forced out of office because he said the war woulkd cost several hundred million.
The attack on Wilson was just one of many examples of this pattern.
The country could have chosen to go to war based on inconclusive and undertain evidence. That's what we had, it was suggestive and circumstantial. Elements within the government, most likely including members of the administration sought to edit out ambiguity and questions.
This leads to a skewed view of reality and corrupts the system. This process has continued with large numbers of people within various branches of the intelligence agencies and the military leaving. Never have we had such a long list of generals calling into questiion foreign policy.
The CIA is cutrrently being overrun with politically correct young Republican cadre like those who ran Bremer's administration of Iraq. Whatever the limits and flaws of the existing experts in this the best method of "reform?"
You praise Wm. Buckley, but just a short time ago he ran a peace saying it was wrong to reveal Plame's CIA identity. That is old school national security thinking. However the radical right has decided it's fine, all is justified in domestic partisan conflict.
The problem is that there are international issues and many indications that the flawed institutions and policies are not being improved, but being replaced by things which are a danger to the nation.
The thing is that if it is proven that Chalabi was always an Iranian agent and led us into war for their interests people like you will still defend the choice and argue that it was the best possible.
The criticisms of Wilson is fair game, he's the one that's always calling the administration liars and since his story doesn't exactly add up with the facts, it's only fair to question his credibility. Wilson also seems to love the publicity now that his wife has been outed and just loves to pose for all sorts of magazines with his wife now. For all we know, Wilson himself could have outed his wife long before Novak's column appeared.
Just heard President Bush read some of the quotes by Democrats leading up to the war. He was looking angry, confident and poised. FINALLY he struck back against claims that he lied about WMD and ties to terrorists.
As the Commentary piece showed, British Intelligence did determine that Saddam sought uranium in Niger. It was a given, according to all intel agencies, that Saddam was interested in building a WMD arsenal. No one can argue that point.
As for the comment about picking and choosing which intel to use, where is your evidence? You can't just make that claim without backing it up. That is simply an assertion.
If anyone is lying here, it's Joe Wilson.
Post a Comment