Monday, July 21, 2003
'I think it is still way too early ...': Reader No. 1 on WMD (and see below his views on the local sporting scene):
"I haven't weighed on the WMD controversy. I think it is still way too early to come to conclusions about WMD. While I concede that was a major point that got politicians behind the war, I also think that was hardly the only criteria for taking out Saddam (see Instapundit and many many others).
"I would not expect this article to change many minds overnight, but I think this Victor Davis Hanson's NRO column makes a succint and powerful statement for why our foreign policy is the way that it is (and why it ought to be).
"It is not as exhaustive as Kagan nor as inspirational as Blair's affirmations this week, this week in Washington but it tells it like it is."
Hub Blog's response: Glad to see a fellow conservative (of a slightly different ideological persuasion) agreeing that WMD were, in fact, a major part of the rationale for war. What has upset me so much is the way some conservatives, too busy cheerleading for Bush as the second coming of Churchill, almost immediately dismissed the WMD issue (i.e., Jeff Jacoby), as if the possibility that our government lied/embellished/screwed up isn't important. If this had been the Clinton administration, you can be damn sure the right would have gone ape-s#*t over the WMD fiasco and subsequent rhetorical flipflops.
"I haven't weighed on the WMD controversy. I think it is still way too early to come to conclusions about WMD. While I concede that was a major point that got politicians behind the war, I also think that was hardly the only criteria for taking out Saddam (see Instapundit and many many others).
"I would not expect this article to change many minds overnight, but I think this Victor Davis Hanson's NRO column makes a succint and powerful statement for why our foreign policy is the way that it is (and why it ought to be).
"It is not as exhaustive as Kagan nor as inspirational as Blair's affirmations this week, this week in Washington but it tells it like it is."
Hub Blog's response: Glad to see a fellow conservative (of a slightly different ideological persuasion) agreeing that WMD were, in fact, a major part of the rationale for war. What has upset me so much is the way some conservatives, too busy cheerleading for Bush as the second coming of Churchill, almost immediately dismissed the WMD issue (i.e., Jeff Jacoby), as if the possibility that our government lied/embellished/screwed up isn't important. If this had been the Clinton administration, you can be damn sure the right would have gone ape-s#*t over the WMD fiasco and subsequent rhetorical flipflops.
