(Page 2 of 8)
Corry misrepresents the past, as well as the present. He says that the “insular conservative journalists” and administration “ideologues” are changing their tune when they say “the U.S. is in Iraq for the long haul.” From the beginning, the Bush administration has been quite clear that part of “regime change” was going to be helping the Iraqi’s create a new democratic government. Did Corry think that meant a commitment of four months?
Corry has ridiculed “insular conservatives” for promoting the vision of a new democratic Iraq giving impetus for a freer, more modern, more prosperous, and less terror-ridden Middle East. But how can he argue that people with this vision did not foresee a long-term U.S. commitment in Iraq? His burning desire to call the Iraq war a failure seems to override his ability to represent the positions of his ideological opponents correctly.
Finally, Corry states that administration figures “seem to be modifying, or even reversing, their old positions” in proclaiming that the reason behind going to war in Iraq — or, more correctly, the WMD portion of the reason behind going to war in Iraq — was not based on “dramatic new evidence.” Apparently, the insular Mr. Corry wasn’t listening very carefully in the months leading up to the war. The heart of the WMD argument was, and always has been, the unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that the UN and world intelligence organizations knew Iraq had when UN inspectors left the country in 1998.p>It is Corry, not “insular conservative journalists,” whose grasp on reality is shaky. br> — Brandon Crocker br> San Diego, CA /p>
Corry’s article was perhaps rejected by the New York Times first?
I mean really — it trots out the same tired arguments dolts like Graham and Daschle have been blathering about for six months now.
The single question Mr. Corry should ponder is why, if there are no WMDs, Saddam chose to go down rather than open his country to prove he didn’t have them.p>A pox on Mr. Corry. Fortunately a stinker or two every so often does not mar your otherwise fine political coverage. br> — W. /p>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online