Hypocrisy - thy name is....
Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) had a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week that got little attention - and it deserved more than it got.
"Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq. " (emphasis mine)
Senator Kerrey then goes on to chastise people like Senator Biden who, while condemning US intervention in an Iraqi Civil War, have no problems interjecting the US into other Civil Wars around the world.
"The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart. "
I have long wondered how the left could justify that position. In the spirit of disclosure, I support us being in Iraq AND into the Sudan in order to stop the atrocities in Darfur. Maybe the Democrats in DC need to think about their positions on these issues and answer the question "why are they so out of line?"
"Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq. " (emphasis mine)
Senator Kerrey then goes on to chastise people like Senator Biden who, while condemning US intervention in an Iraqi Civil War, have no problems interjecting the US into other Civil Wars around the world.
"The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart. "
I have long wondered how the left could justify that position. In the spirit of disclosure, I support us being in Iraq AND into the Sudan in order to stop the atrocities in Darfur. Maybe the Democrats in DC need to think about their positions on these issues and answer the question "why are they so out of line?"
Labels: Anti-War Movement, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Hypocrisy
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home