The American Spectator

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>