Yesterday Sylvester Brown Jr wrote an article bashing Bush, and of course when Democrats do this they lose all sight of facts:
I’ve noticed that comedian Bill Maher has been doing a bit of reaching out himself lately. Several times on his show, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” he’s encouraged more conservatives to join his audience. Maher’s even conceded that his criticism of President George W. Bush’s activities in Iraq may have been at least partly wrong.
“Look, on the long-range, big picture of getting the freedom-and-democracy ball rolling in the Middle East, maybe these guys had it right,” Maher said on his show Friday.
Sounds to me like Maher’s buying into the bait-and-switch rhetoric of the Bush clan. Maybe I would, too, if they were straight shooters. But, before the Iraq invasion, the rallying cry was against an “axis of evil” and “weapons of mass destruction.” I don’t recall any prewar speeches about delivering democracy to the Middle East.
Well, Instapundit went right out and reminded this idiot of the facts since he couldn’t recall any:
Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.
We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. . . .
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to humanity.
How about this one:
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
Or this one:
MARGARET WARNER: Last night, Pres. Bush laid out his argument that a post-Saddam Iraq could become a flourishing democracy.
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause)
MARGARET WARNER: The president further asserted that a democratic Iraq could transform the entire region in a similar way.
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.
American Future has a good post along the same lines showing the moonbats that the run up to the war was not ONLY about WMD’s.
The run-up to the invasion of Iraq began in earnest with Mr. Bush?s September 12, 2002, UN address. ?Saddam Hussein?s regime is a grave and gathering danger,? said the President. While the threat was serious, it was a gathering threat, not an imminent one. A threat can?t be simultaneously gathering and imminent.
In a speech delivered in Cincinnati on October 2, Mr. Bush described Saddam?s Iraq as ?a grave threat to peace.? His speech also included the following words: ?Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.? Significant, yes; imminent, no.
Eight days later, the House and Senate passed the Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of US armed forces against Iraq. In the resolution, the word ?threat? appears only once: the President was authorized to ?defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq . . . ? The word ?imminent? is absent from the Resolution
More at his blog.