Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission

:: Netmarcos' Notes ::

Musings and rambling commentary on current events, politics, music, and other cultural issues mixed with a few personal references.
:: welcome to Netmarcos' Notes :: bloghome | contact ::
[:: (re)search ::]
:: google ::
:: Dog Pile::
:: Charters of Freedom ::
:: ThomasPaine.org ::
[:: news and opinion ::]
:: Opinion Journal ::
:: National Review Online ::
:: FOX ::
:: MSNBC ::
:: World Net Daily ::
:: The Drudge Report::
:: InstaPundit ::
[:: blogosphere ::]
:: Day by Day Cartoon ::
:: James Lileks ::
:: ScrappleFace ::
:: Moxie ::
:: The Dissident Frogman::
:: Insignificant Thoughts::
:: Dave Barry ::
[:: España ::]
:: Atlas of Spain ::
:: EL MUNDO ::
:: DIALNET::Búsqueda de articulos científicos en español
:: Prestige: exigimos responsabilidades
[:: archive ::]

:: Friday, September 19, 2003 ::

J. D. Hayworth on Bush Haters & War on National Review Online continues to search for truth concerning Iraq in the nations major media outlets...and finds little of it.
Repeated ad nauseam is that charge that the Bush administration claimed the threat from Iraq was 'imminent.' Indeed, Gen. Wesley Clark has made that charge a major talking point. But it's rubbish. Here are the president's own words: 'Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.' Acting before a threat becomes imminent is the essence of the Bush Doctrine. That's why it's called preemption.
Furthermore, there was never a single reason cited by the president to act against Saddam, but several, including human rights, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, regime change, and democratization. Still, the New York Times continues to distort the truth, and in the process contradicts itself.
On September 15, the paper wrote that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were 'the main rationale cited for war earlier this year.' But earlier this year, just before the war started, the very same New York Times wrote that, 'Many liberals have criticized the president's ever-changing rationales for war.…' What both have in common, of course, is that they are negative about the president.
The Bush haters are also befuddled that most Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a role in the September 11 attacks. In fact, there is a definite 9/11-Saddam link, although probably not a direct one. Setting aside the question of how much contact there was between al Qaeda and Saddam, it was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that set off a chain of events that led inexorably to 9/11.
Don't take my word for it. Here is what Time magazine wrote in the October 1, 2001 issue, published shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

:: Mark 9:02 AM [+] ::
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?