March 20, 2007

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Thomas Bayard of Wilmington calls President Bush a liar because one of the reasons for starting the war in Iraq was that country's possession of WMDs (even though Bayard doesn't note that WMD was only one of the reasons for the war) -- and compares this "lie" to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which began the Vietnam War:

Like another, older war, this one began with a lie. Before it was called "The Tonkin Gulf Incident." This time it was "Weapons of Mass Destruction." In 1964, the "Incident" allowed the president to get his resolution through Congress. There was almost no opposition. In 2003, another president got another resolution through Congress with even less opposition. In both cases, it soon became apparent that Congress and the American people had been lied to, bamboozled into supporting a president's desire to have a war.

The problem is, unlike Tonkin -- which was soon thereafter revealed to have been of quite dubious origin -- the belief that Saddam Hussein had possessed weapons of mass destruction significantly predates the current Bush administration:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

So said President Bill Clinton in 1998, three years before George W. Bush took office in his place. Former National Security Adviser and recent National Archive Thief Sandy Berger once stated regarding Hussein that "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Were Clinton and Berger lying? Indeed, were all these famous (or infamous) Democrats lying too?

Face it, Tom, your analogy stinks. Bush didn't "lie" about Saddam having WMDs. What happened was that our intelligence (and that of many other countries) was flawed. This doesn't equate to Bush "lying." But if you still think he did lie, then you must also believe all those of the opposing party "lied" too.

Oppose the war all you wish. I do. But do it using something other than the tired old canard of "Bush lied about WMDs."

Posted by Hube at March 20, 2007 04:32 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

yawn, bill clinton...

seriously can you write a post that doesn't lump him into any criticism of Bush?

Posted by: donviti at March 20, 2007 04:56 PM

When it directly pertains to the issue and is legitimate, I use it.

Thinking people understand this, dimwitty. Thus, you're excluded.

Posted by: Hube at March 20, 2007 06:23 PM

In these times of short attention span and rose-colored revisionism (Clinton balanced the budget, not the GOP Congress; Clinton made the stock market soar, despite the fact that he caused the tech bust by his cash grab on Microsoft, etc.) you have to bring up Clinton when Bush is targeted. Nobody seems to remember anything that happened before the Golden Age of Billary. Gulf of Tonkin? LBJ? For folks like Tom and Don V that might as well be ancient history, if not mythology.

Posted by: G Rex at March 22, 2007 09:51 AM