ÐHwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/something-new-honesty-from-left-on-iraq.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/something-new-honesty-from-left-on-iraq.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.fi1xÄ…[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿȨŸïf[OKtext/htmlUTF-8gzipÀ¹àf[ÿÿÿÿJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 14:37:05 GMT"7bbeb861-d57d-40cc-bdff-99a4cd09452a"—@Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *Á…[Iÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦of[ Dakota Voice: Something New: Honesty from the Left on Iraq

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Monday, June 16, 2008

Something New: Honesty from the Left on Iraq

I'll admit it: I'm stunned. I can't remember the last time I saw honesty on a polarizing issue from the Left--especially not from the "mainstream" media. Yet NewsBusters points out some amazingly refreshing honesty from a Leftwing newsman.

James Kirchick, the assistant editor of The New Republic, not only admits in the LA Times that President Bush didn't lie about Iraq, but provides information which illustrates that truth.

Even the report released earlier this month being touted by the Left as containing proof that "Bush lied, people died," doesn't really say what they claim.

Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Kirchick's piece points out that a number of liberal politicians who were reading the same intelligence as President Bush were making the same alarmed statements before the 2003 invasion. The difference: when we didn't find the smoking gun we gave Saddam plenty of time to hide, the liberals became political opportunists, while Bush stayed the course for the greater good.

Were we wrong about some things? Maybe. Was Saddam in violation of the agreement he made at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Absolutely. Did we have justification and an obligation to take action. No doubt. Does that matter to those who prefer to rip the country apart for a few political points? Nope.

But perhaps there's hope that some on the Left still know how to be honest. Kirchick has restored some of my faith.


1 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say James Kirchick is from the left. He might have been at one time, but I don't think you could call him that anymore.

Kirchick's political views and commentary have not fit neatly into any particular box, though his tone is often biting and strident. Although he once canvassed for Ralph Nader and (in a 2006 Wall Street Journal article) identified himself as a "liberal Democrat", he has also called himself a "conservative," "libertarian," and "recovering leftist.

His subsequent writing places him more firmly in the neoconservative camp, contributing to venues such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Here his writing has largely consisted of outspoken criticism of liberal or left-wing public figures and groups along with advocacy of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, including support for the Iraq War. He has also criticized American paleoconservatives such as Patrick Buchanan and libertarian Ron Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kirchick

 
Clicky Web Analytics