John Norman Podhoretz asks—rhetorically—who it is that is lying about Iraq. It’s a very clear and logical piece on the word and deed preceding the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom (the length is necessary for this type of chronicle). All the purported facts contained therein are easily verifiable, including one I routinely bring up when in a discussion about alleged Iraqi WMD: President Clinton’s policy on the subject. (Yes, as a matter of fact I do keep it handily bookmarked.) Also included in the Podhoretz piece are the words of today’s leading lights in the Democrat party, such as Senator John Kerry, Vice President Al Gore, Senator Edward Kennedy and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Unfortunately, I suspect that those who have a vested interest in believing that President Bush and members of his administration “lied” about the pretext for invading Iraq will ignore this essay as they have ignored any Democrat's words of assertion that the Iraqis possessed WMD before it was discovered that they did not.
However, the few critics of the present Iraq conflict who can’t quite block Operation Desert Fox out of their minds will sometimes attempt to justify President Clinton’s conduction of that military operation. Some of the more surreal attempts include praise for the former president for not invading Iraq even though he threatened to do so! That’s right. Some people actually give President Clinton a pat on the back for not backing up his words with meaningful action--for selling woof tickets* as a matter of sound presidential policy. Therefore, when America's enemies observed that its leader was all talk and no action and reacted accordingly, that means that this observed presidential trait was a good one.
That's an example of what happens to one's thinking when one cares more about the ascendance of his/her political party than about long-term security for all of us.
From this observation and from many others, one can conclude that no amount of calm reason on the subject of Iraq will get through to the “Bush-lied” crowd because conclusions based on calm reason doesn’t support the main goal: sufficiently hampering President Bush’s presidency and all of his endeavors, most especially the Iraq War.
Still it’s nice to have the whole he-said/she-said/they-did scenario laid out in one place. It’s a good reference paper.
*Verbally spoiling for a fight without the intention and/or ability of backing up one's words.
(Thanks to Lucianne)
