So there won’t be a transcript of the ventriloquism act in front of the 9/11 Commission today. Why?According to this:
The decision, following a practice President Ronald Reagan used in 1987 when appearing before a commission probing the Iran-contra matter…
Iran-Contra, yeah, that’s what I want to cite as precedent when trying to convince America that there was no wrongdoing, yessiree.
The press is starting to give a hard time about it too:
“MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, the President is already under oath as the President of the United States. But let me go back to when the President signed the legislation creating this commission.
“Q He’s under oath 24 hours a day? (Laughter.)”
And if he is under oath 24/7, does that mean we can try him for perjury for such lines as “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction” and “Mission Accomplished” and… well, you know the list.
Hey Glenn,
Now that we know that there are WMDs in Iraq (because they’ve now been used against our troops), are the liberals going to apologize for being wrong, ignore the truth and continue claiming that there are no WMDs in Iraq, or just ignore the whole thing and hope everyone forgets how wrong they were on this whole issue?
I discount the first option. When it comes to the President, the country, and the war on terror, I think that the priorities of the left are too screwed up for them to do the right thing. I would guess that it will be a combo of the second two. They’ll lay low for a while (I’m not seeing the left wing bloggers that I usually check out talking about the gas attack on our troops) until they figure that many people have forgotten about the WMDs and then renew their attacks on Bush when the coast is clear, claiming all over again that there are no WMDs in Iraq.
“Hey, it’s got to work better than the truth.” – Otter, Animal House
Really? WMDs have been used against our troops in Iraq? Where? When? I mean, you’d think this would be a news story, and yet I haven’t heard a peep.
The closest I’ve seen is that ,a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/international/middleeast/17CND-SARI.html?pagewanted=print&position=”>one shell has been found over the weekend which may contain sarin, and they’re waiting for testing to confirm. Certainly nobody’s been attacked with anything.
Oddly, the stories you presumably cite all seem to mention Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man George W. Bush failed to stop three times before the war started, on the grounds that actually getting him might pre-empt the case for war.
Maybe you need better news sources. Or less commitment to liberal dogma. The shell went off. Some of our soldiers were treated for exposure to nerve gas.
Try the New York Post. (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/21166.htm)
And here’s a response to the New York Times’ rather bizarre take on this story – http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005101
Almost as if the Times was trying to downplay the fact that WMDs have been found. Nah. Couldn’t be. They’re objective.
I appreciate the insight into your thought process though. I guess I overestimated liberals. I hadn’t anticipated the “Sure they were WMDs, but no one got hurt so they aren’t a threat and its still Bush’s fault” approach. Nice psychic look into President Bush’s mind though. And you know why he didn’t go after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi…how exactly? Interesting thought. I wonder how the Left would have responded if President Bush, at that point in time, started apprehending and/or killing Arabic leaders to try to prevent a war. I’m sure that, supportive as they are, liberals would have supported him and even assisted him to the best of their abilities.
Right.
Kind of like they’re doing right now with the 9/11 Commission, all this criticism of the War on Terror, and all the boogie man stories about how the Patriot Act is being used to abuse man and rape women in all corners of the nation. More staunch patriots the country has never seen.
Doesn’t change the fact that WMDs have been found in Iraq. Deal with it. The Left was wrong. They can either own up to it in a show of honesty or continue the way they’re going.
Since the truth doesn’t seem to be the issue to them, I’d say they’ll continue the way they’re going. And your response doesn’t give me any reason to reconsider that opinion.