Kerry's Buddies Bought Off By Saddam

Josh Marshall has a great response to this. Quoting:

If it weren't so sad (and tragic), it would truly be funny to watch the White House scrounge around for even the most ridiculous retrospective rationales for war as the original ones collapse around them.

Today we have this line from the Associated  Press: "This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale."

That's the new casus belli -- corruption in the oil-for-food program.

You can't make this stuff up.

Or, rather, I guess you can make this stuff. Since they are making it up.

In post-9/11 world, we can't stand idly by while third-world politicians take bribes and kickbacks!

[me again] See the whole thing here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_03.php#003619

JC: C'mon man, I never said this was a rationale for the war. I said this was an explanation of why our "allies" were so opposed to us, and have been for quite some time. There's a difference. Plus, again and again, WMD were not the only cause for war. How about the constant pot shots Saddam took at the planes enforcing the no-fly zones? Those alone were all the justification required for a resumption of hostilities, since, of course, hostilities never actually ceased. Further, Saddam had a duty not just to refrain from having WMD, but to prove that he didn't have them. He didn't do that, and in fact made no attempt to prove it, and in fact did a lot to make people think he did have them. And so forth... there were so many reasons to finish Saddam off it almost is funny, if the left's delusion weren't so tragic, and, if allowed to guide our country, fatal.

But yes, I'll concede that fear of WMD was one reason for the war, and it wasn't born out. I'd like to know why we were wrong, but it's not surprising in hind-sight since everyone else was wrong, too. So it goes. I guess the lesson to rogue nations is that they'd better be a bit more eager to assure us that they're on our side.

Dude. You were wrong because you let your ideology blind you to the available evidence. You were wrong because you were willing to trust people who are demonstrated serial liars. And you're still doing it.

JC: The evidence you claim was so available led everyone in the world to the same conclusion, including John Kerry, including France and Germany and Britain, including even Saddam's generals. All those people hold different ideologies, so if they were all wrong it's probably not because they were all "blinded". The belief that Iraq had tons of WMD was not based on the assertions of just a few: every intelligence agency in the world knew it. No one disputed it before the war.

And anyway, like I've said many times, WMD were just one reason to fight, not the sole reason.

They didn't "know" it. They had some evidence for it, some evidence against it, and lots of evidence that could be interpreted either way. It was the Bush crowd that turned that into "certainty".

Lots of people disputed Bush's decision that it was necessary to go to war in order to "disarm" Saddam. A majority of the world's people. A majority of the UN Security Council. The UN weapons inspectors. A small but significant subset of US politicians. A larger subset of US citizens, including me.

Guess what? Subsequent events have proven that we were right, and you were wrong. You (and Bush) can deny that if you want. But denying it doesn't change the reality. It just makes you look (more) foolish.

John: You know what's foolish? Your little one sided rant. In your frantic haste, you forgot somebody.

In 2003 he said "If you don't believe that Saddam Hussein has WMD, then don't vote for me."

Where's your blazing guns for this guy?

By the way, his name John Kerry.

I was supporting Howard Dean at that point. If he were the Democratic nominee, I'd be supporting him today.

But I'll settle for Kerry. He's clearly a better choice than Bush.

So you do recognize that Kerry went from the "war candidate" to the "anti-war candidate" to trump Dean, right?

What's your atrraction to Kerry then?

By the way, I don't agree with a lot of what Bush says, but I know when he says he's going to do something, he'll stick with it. That's an important quality. It shows a true belief in one's own convictions.

Kerry's convictions don't even seem to figure into his positions. Like the other night on the debate- he's against abortion, but won't follow his own convictions on it if placed in office. Upon what will he predicate his judgement in leadership? How will he hold strong on positions that you might really support, when he demonstrates the propensity to cave to the "highest bidder", so to speak.

How do you reconcile this when you think about "just voting out Bush"? Isn't a Presedential election about more than just an emotional vote?