Dems try to discredit US
The Dems try to quantify a threat.
"...concludes that 'Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States.' Interesting word, 'imminent.' It also appears in the DNC ad and increasingly in press commentary.
"The word does appear once in the president's State of the Union. To wit, 'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.' He rejected this: 'Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.' The whole thrust of the policy of pre-emption, after all, is that in a world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer wait until a threat is imminent. A madman like Saddam heading a nation-state is itself an intolerable threat."
My take:
Why Are the Democrats This Stupid?
Merv Benson - Washington, Texas
What is really odd about the Nigerian forged documents is that the forgeries were known before the first shots were fired in the war. U.N. inspectors complained of the forgeries weeks before the war in a publicly broadcast session of the Security Counsel.
Congress decided to authorize the use of force well before the famous 16 words were uttered.
So force was authorized before the State of the Union address, and the forgeries were known before shots were fired. It is reasonable to assume, that the Nigerian forgeries were not really material in the U.S. rationale for war. They do give the Democrats another reason to demonstrate why Democrats should not be trusted with national security issues.
Memo to Democrats: Saddam Hussein was a homicidal despot who was a threat to anyone who stood in his way and who ordered his forces to fire on U.S. planes on a daily basis. Why are you guys acting like it was a mistake to remove him from power?
The Dems try to quantify a threat.
"...concludes that 'Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States.' Interesting word, 'imminent.' It also appears in the DNC ad and increasingly in press commentary.
"The word does appear once in the president's State of the Union. To wit, 'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.' He rejected this: 'Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.' The whole thrust of the policy of pre-emption, after all, is that in a world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer wait until a threat is imminent. A madman like Saddam heading a nation-state is itself an intolerable threat."
My take:
Why Are the Democrats This Stupid?
Merv Benson - Washington, Texas
What is really odd about the Nigerian forged documents is that the forgeries were known before the first shots were fired in the war. U.N. inspectors complained of the forgeries weeks before the war in a publicly broadcast session of the Security Counsel.
Congress decided to authorize the use of force well before the famous 16 words were uttered.
So force was authorized before the State of the Union address, and the forgeries were known before shots were fired. It is reasonable to assume, that the Nigerian forgeries were not really material in the U.S. rationale for war. They do give the Democrats another reason to demonstrate why Democrats should not be trusted with national security issues.
Memo to Democrats: Saddam Hussein was a homicidal despot who was a threat to anyone who stood in his way and who ordered his forces to fire on U.S. planes on a daily basis. Why are you guys acting like it was a mistake to remove him from power?
Comments
Post a Comment