Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Administration to Fight Back

I'll believe it when I see it, but I found this at CNN:


Senior administration officials are working on what they call a "campaign-style" strategy to respond to stepped-up Democratic criticism that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in making the case for war in Iraq.

"You're going to see heavy and direct engagement from this administration," according to a senior administration official, who said there would be "an increased presence and willingness to be more aggressive in responding to Democrats."

The Democrats are making fools of themselves by disavowing involvement in a war we are obviously winning. The world has changed dramatically since March 19, 2003 and using arguments that only show how murky our knowledge was prior to Iraq makes it even more clear that deposing Saddam was necessary for our future security. We know what is happening in an important region in the Middle East whereas before it was just a black box of confusion, veiled threats, sinister motives, and deception from a country that had placed itself outside the norms of international order.

In Iraq al Qaeda does not have the protection of mountain valleys, forests, and caves from which to fight. And their desperation and fury at losing an Arab country to democracy has shown the world their cruel and inhuman face. And the vast majority of Iraqi people, whether sunni or shi'a, have shown al Qaeda, the muslim world, and us, that they won't put up with this nonsense.

Compare the awakening of the muslim world to the danger from within and the shame it brings to Islam to a murderous, savage, dangerous tyrant who kept his people and his activities in a box closed to outside eyes and the notion of arguing over a specific piece of pre-war intel becomes ludicrous.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Seriously OT (Sorry Syl, I'll comment later)

After reading Hugh Hewitt's latest posts, I did some googling on the Sony rootkit problem and found this fascinating article.

Sony rootkit investigation

Would one of you tech types put up a post on the subject, please?

Syl said...

mark

read the posting.

All you're fighting about is how murky our intelligence was before the war. It only proves that Saddam's disinformation and lies were working.

so what?

Anonymous said...

About friggin time...

Dems say they were lied to about the evidence that sent us to war.

That only works if they are prepared to explain how they were lied to by the Clintonians as well. The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was coined during those tumultuous times.

Syl said...

Mark

Isn't the Democratic criticism of the murky intelligence what they plan to fight back against?

No.

They're trying to prove that the intelligence was not murky and in fact was clear that Saddam didn't have wmd.

And thus they believe they were duped into supporting a war we are winning.

Anonymous said...

From the linked article:

"You're going to see heavy and direct engagement from this administration," according to a senior administration official, ...

One may fairly discount the predicted onslaught when the "senior adminstration official" (Cheney? Rove? Third-shift WH switchboard operator?) refuses to be named for attribution.

Not that making complete fools of the Dem leadership requires enormous political competence.

Unknown said...

Mark:

Actually the Democrats have been lying their tails off here lately. Making all kinds of unfounded accusations. But the loonies love it.

I used to remember a time when Liberals worried about the little guy. You know the kind of people that guys like Saddam kill by the hundreds of thousands. No more. Now it is the opposite. Often as not a reactionary liberal is the mass murderer's best friend and leading aoplogist.

In fact liberals used to care about the environment, but the fact that Saddam did incredible damage to the ecosystem of Iraq is of no importance to them.

Liberals supposedly care about things like human rights and ethnic cleansing but they are indifferent to destruction of the Marsh Arabs or the well documented and infamous human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein.

In fact I have not seen liberals work this hard trying to defend a monster since Chomsky was singing the praises of and the Utopian Khmer Rouge. And how can we forget the Mao?

Of course the Democrats are part of the leadup to the Iraq war, if they were not Clinton would have walked away from dealing with Iraq years ago. But he did not and neither did the UN.

The truth is people would have believed in Saddam and his weapons whether Bush ever left Texas or not.

Maybe the left is sorry that the Butcher of Baghdad is not in business anymore. I am not.

I was ashamed that my country did nothing when a million Africans were slaughtered and I am glad that we did not turn our back on the people of Iraq.

I am also glad that we made it plain that when the UN passes a mandatory force resolution that means something and when the US signs a cease fire that means something and when some dictator tries to kill president that means something too.

Some people need to know there are limits.

One thing I do find interesting. To this day no one really knows what did happen to the weapons. The programs were still there, just like the centrafuges in the rose garden of a scientist. But there are still a lot of unanswered questions and people like Reid are not interested in the truth, they are just playing politics with war.

Unknown said...

Is this the same Mark that got kicked off of Roger Simon's?

Unknown said...

Peter:

It is worse than that. Democrats like Kenneth Pollack [of Clinton's National Security Council] did not just go along with the intelligence, they wrote books about how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.

Rick Ballard said...

Dumb and Democrat

Peter,

This is an ecologically sensitive blog so redundancy is discouraged. Every pixel is precious!

Unknown said...

I had almost forgotten Joseph Mailander.

Yes and there he was savaging Dennis for not goining up.

Does he know how old Dennis is?

Rick Ballard said...

Maybe Dwindlecrat. Dumbocrat might be considered accurate regarding the remainder but it's rather pejorative concerning the people who watched their party lurch ever leftward ubtil it disappeared from view.

Syl said...

Mark

You have NO facts. You haven't a clue what's going on in Iraq. You don't give a shit for the Iraqi people or you wouldn't spew nonsense just for the sake of argument.

If this were my blog, you'd be gone.

flenser said...

markg8

So to sum up, no matter when or under what circumstances the troops come home, you will declare it a defeat, correct?

Can you define what you would be willing to consider a victory?

flenser said...

syl

"If this were my blog, you'd be gone."

It's as much your blog as anyones. Banning people from blogger is difficult to impossible though.

We can simply delete all marks comments if he becomes too much of an annoyance.