Spin That Sarin
By Ed Driscoll
June 22, 2006
<SNIP>
It's amusing to watch the pushback from the left after Santorum's press conference yesterday. Beginning in mid-2003, the mantra began that Saddam had no WMDs--zip, zero, nadda. Or as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said as recently as last week,
<< "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." >>
Now the latest version being fielded is that, well, Saddam had them, but they were old, outdated. pay them no mind.
Of Senator Kerry's time in Vietnam, James Lileks once wrote, "The past was more malleable than you had ever expected." But if anything, that's even more true when it comes to Iraq than the Winter Soldier's salad days. Just look at Al Gore in 1993, and today (see links below).
Update: Evangelical Outpost notes correctly:
Opposition to the war has nothing to do with the lack of
WMDs. It never did. We could find a nuclear bomb in Uday
Hussein’s old apartment and John Kerry would still be
gearing up for Winter Soldier II. Unless you dropped your
moral compass off the side of a swift boat in Cambodia,
it’s easy to see that the world is safer because we
secured the one WMD that truly mattered: Saddam Hussein.
More important than the weapons that were found (or that
have yet to be found) are the ones that will never be
created by Saddam’s regime. Many Americans, however, still
suffer from the delusion that the only way that Saddam
could have been a significant threat was for him to have
possessed stockpiles of WMDs.
Meanwhile, Shannon Love ressurects Hitchcock's McGuffin device to explain why Saddam's WMDs were ignorned or spun by the left.
Update: Ian Schwartz has a round-up of cable and Blogosphere opinion.
exposetheleft.com
eddriscoll.com
floppingaces.net
thinkprogress.org
eddriscoll.com
eddriscoll.com
powerlineblog.com
evangelicaloutpost.com
shannonlove.blogspot.com |
