:: Netmarcos' Notes ::

:: Monday, July 14, 2003 ::

Good reading in the OpinionJournal today as the editorial staff attempts to bring some clear, rational analysis back into the debate on Iraq. In response to the monotonous drone from the left side of the political isle and the media parrots under their spell about the "factual inacuracies" in the President's statements leading up to the war in Iraq, the Journal tries to set the record straight about who it is that actually sets US domestic and foreign policy and put the claim that Saddam may have been seeking uranium from Niger back into context.

The charge is that 16 of the words that President Bush uttered during his January State of the Union address may have been false. Here's what he said: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' We say this 'may' be false, because in fact the British government continues to stand by this assertion even if the CIA does not. So what Mr. Bush said about what the British believe was true in January and is still true today.
Based on this non-lie, then, we are all supposed to believe that the entire case for going to war was false and that--precisely what? Other than calling for someone's head, and for a Congressional probe that would give free TV time to Democrats running for President, the critics don't seem to be demanding anything specific about policy. Do John Kerry and Joe Lieberman now regret their vote to allow Mr. Bush to go to war in Iraq?

:: Mark 9:40 AM [+] ::
...