Advertisement

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 AM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234

Saddam And WMD

Saturday, April 28, 2007  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt
Advertisement

Yesterday I debated Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff on the invasion of Iraq, its aftermath, and the wisdom of that invasion.  The left is noiw heavily invested in the idea that President Bush manipulated intelligence to deceive the Democratic Party into supporting the war, and that WMD was the only reason why the Democrats agreed to the effort.  In fact, as the article “After Iraq” in the February 17 & 24 2003 New Yorker  by Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism Nick Lemann demonstrates, the arguments for removing Saddam and his sons were many and persuasive and remain so to this day.  (Lemann’s article is no longer available on the web, but I captured its first four paragraphs in this post –scroll down.) As the interview with Isikoff demonstrates —audio here and the transcript will be posted here later— the left’s narrative always reduces the argument for invasion to the WMD and then reduces the argument about WMD to “There weren’t any WMDs so we made a terrible mistake.”  The full response to this intentional but widespread distortion of this portion of the record is long, but I did want to remind readers of the “Key Findings” of the Iraq Survey Group, a set of conclusions that the anti-Bush MSM and the Democratic Party spinners never find time to include in their narrative.

The crucial summary of the ISG: “[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.”  But read the whole report or at least the summary, as the anti-Bush spinners never have.
Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Sierra Pacific Mortgage
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top