First off, I am not an apologist or a booster for George W. Bush and his presidency. I do believe that, like Truman, he will be treated better by the history writers of the future than the pundits of today portray him. The eggheaded liberal commentators sit in their ivory towers and pontificate on his shortcomings. Admittedly, there were several goofs along the way. I count the nomination of Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court and his initial reaction to Hurricane Katrina as two big ones. I initially was against the war in Iraq for three reasons. First, the more immediate threat was from al-Queda, bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan. Finishing the job there would have been better. Second, the "shock and awe" was followed by the chaos and violence that ensued. It appeared as if Bush and Rumsfeld knew how to win a war but not the peace because they had no plan. Perhaps, they seriously underestimated the sectarian factors. Third, I always thought that a more cost-effective method of dealing with Iraq was a bullet to his head. If his rapist sons or brothers took over, then deal with them the same way. If the CIA could not or would not do it, then contract the job out to the Mossad. At least they whave the wherewithal and balls to do it.
Remembering back to the days leading up to the Iraq invasion, I distinctly remember UN nuclear arms inspector Hans Blix throwing his arms up in the air in exasperation. I remember him stating that Hussein was not cooperating with his inspectors. Hindsight is always 20/20, never blind.
In his column in the New York Times, Karl Rove wrote an article detailing the one major regret during his tenure in the Bush White House. Namely, in response to Democratic mischaracterizations against Bush, the White house never pushed back. As everyone remembers, our primary reason for invading Iraq was to find and rid that country of weapons of mass destruction before Hussein used them or passed them to terrorists. Not only Bush, but the intelligence services of several countries besides the United States had intelligence to these ends. Rove goes on to quote the conclusions of several Congressional committees and independent commissions which concluded the Bush White House relied on faulty intelligence. In retrospect, CIA director George Tenet said as much with his infamous "slam dunk" response.
The gist of the Rove article was that several heavyweights in the Democratic Party, privy to the evidence Bush was presented with, came to the same conclusions that Hussein had or was developing WMDs. The list is impressive: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Bob Graham, and Jay Rockefeller. Prior to the invasion, they all believed Hussein had WMDs and stated so publicly on the record, which Rove recounts. And incidentally, British, French, German, and Israeli intelligence all came to the same conclusions.
Although some WMDs were discovered, the vast stockpiles never materialized. Whether they never were, are still hidden, or were spirited out of the country is still a matter of debate. What is of significance, however, is the psot-invasion reaction from the likes of Gore, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Graham, and Rockefeller. Sensing a weakened president entering an election year, they all o varying degrees accused Bush of deliberately lying to them and the country as a pretext for invading Iraq. Some even said these "lies" rose to the level of treason and that Bush should be impeached. Rove's article then nicely recounts the vitriolic and incendiary comments directed at Bush by these "honorable" losers. Rove's point was that he regrets not convincing Bush of pushing back at the detractors and calling them out for their hypocrisy. He refused saying that Bush did not wish to "relitigate" the past. That is all the article was about.
Since no one really reads the New York Times any more, the liberals must have done so on-line. An article by Peter Daou, a former political adviser to Hillary Clinton, is typical of the liberal response. Of course, to them, anything Karl Rove is necessarily nonsense to them. But nowhere in his typical liberal diatribe does one read a refutation of the quotes before and after the Iraq invasion by these heavyweight Democrats. He cannot because they comments are on the record in stark black and white, preserved forever on video or audio tapes.
Instead, he cannot defend his or their hypocrisy, so he changes the story. He starts talking about human rights in Iraq where Rove mentions it in passing only because it was an inconvenient by-product of the toppling of Hussein. But, Daou dedicates half his article to this. Then he turns his attention to the fact that certain elements in the Bush administration accused or intimated that liberals were unpatriotic or accused of treason for their views. This descent to playground, kindergarten tactics is typical. Not once does he criticize Al Gore's accusations that Bush was guilty of actual treason. It is one thing to mention that illiterate marchers in the streets were "treasonous," and quite another for Gore to stand there and accuse a sitting President of the United States of treason. But alas! Daou and other liberals simply gloss over the inaccuracies of their leaders, not to mention their hypocrisy. He fails to mention their pre-invasion agreement with Bush and their post-invasion name-calling. Daou also has a difference of opinion with "success" in Iraq. While not perfect, it certainly is 200% better than 2003- a mere seven years ago. And along the way, people, including women, vote in elections.
It is truly disheartening that liberals have selective memory when it comes to recent history. However, given their propensity to rewrite whole chunks of history, it is not surprising. But, it is getting old and boring real quick. If they intend to write these types of thoughts, they should at least admit their mistakes of the past or at least make a passing reference to them before glossing over them or ignoring them. Disheartening. Hypocrisy. Ignorant. Mistakes. All words that describe liberals in general.