I woke up at an ungodly hour and decided to look around the blogoshphere and I came across a link at Roger Simon's that made my blood boil. Could this be true?
It makes you wonder if Saddam would really use such a defence.
On one hand it seems to be a hoax, on another it makes a kind of perverse sense and demonstrates to us once again that politics should end at the water's edge.
Contrast that screed with the real live actual authorization to use force that the House voted on before the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The search facility at the site allows you to access the actual bill voted on and not the spin about the bill we hear today. Please note the emphasis on Saddam's flagrant breaking of the law.
It makes it plain that cease fire violations, the brutal repression of the Iraqi people, support for international terrorism as well as the Iraqi Liberation Act had more to do with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power than weapons stockpiles.
One is fantasy while the other is reality, as if Saddam or the Demcoratic leadership could tell the difference.
4 comments:
Rush does excellent spoofs from time to time. Close enough to the truth to generate a little steam - until you get to the blow off.
Peter,
A question for you. When government changes hands in the UK are civil service bureaucrats given the heave ho or does the new government have to deal with subversion for a bit? Did Blair have to use Thatcher/Major hires to run foreign policy?
peter - wouldn't a few hours spent with this answer rick's question for him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Minister
When one of the parties in question is actively pandering to the enemy it is really no great surprise that the country is "divided". They would be sadly disappointed if it were not.
peter:
At least some of us grew up.
I think there was a price to pay for Viet Nam and we are paying it now.
Post a Comment