Ah, the loony left. Ah, “language that even liberals can understand.”
In phraseology eerily derivative of Ann Coulter’s new book title, Mr. Robert Huck attempts to persuade readers that the Duelfer report is not devastating to the Bush administration, particularly just weeks before a presidential election. While Republican congresspersons privately admit it effectively kills the rationale for invading Iraq, and the White House itself harbors no illusions that it doesn’t, Mr. Huck buys the bogus interpretation favorable to George Bush then regurgitates it to the State Journal-Register in the form of his own original conclusions.
Ah, the loony, gullible left.
In a classic case of “Fool me once, shame on you…” (an adage Bush famously flubbed), Europeans, who now give Americans a pass for electing the conman once, will feel no such compunctions once we reelect him. Presumably Mr. Huck doesn’t care what they think.
Ah, the loony, gullible, sensitive, nuanced left.
Black is white and up is down. Karl Rove is counting on enough voters who don’t know truth from spin to reelect Bush, who does. Hucksters sell Mr. Huck a convoluted argument he repeats with a vengeance daring the ignorant liberals to dispute. I’m one liberal who won’t; the report and its implications are self-evident. John Kerry, in his political calculations, may wriggle out of the so-called “L label,” but I’m not running for anything. I embrace it.
Every time I read a letter such as Mr. Huck’s, I feel incrementally more liberal. Thank you, Mr. Huck.
Rita Gretchen Cormulley
The Following is the letter which prompted the above response.
WMD report proves Bush was correct
Despite the spin put on it by John Kerry's sycophants in the liberal media, Charles Duelfer's report on Iraq's WMD program confirms that President George W. Bush was right all along in his decision to invade. The Duelfer report outlines a web of corruption and deceit that extends from Baghdad to Paris, Berlin, Belgrade, Moscow, Damascus, Kiev and Pyongyang.
While Iraq did not possess WMDs at the time of the invasion, Duelfer makes it clear that Saddam was merely biding his time until the U.N. sanctions unraveled. Moreover, Saddam's efforts to restart his WMD program were being bankrolled by our supposed "allies" in France and Germany.
Not only that, our "allies" that John Kerry is so fond of, were making billions in kickbacks from the oil-for-food program. Kerry's allies were literally stealing money from starving Iraqi children so that Saddam could in the next few years create nuclear missiles. The French, Germans and Russians must be very proud of themselves.
I'll keep this simple so that even a liberal can understand it. Here is what would have happened if the United States had not invaded Iraq last year: Saddam and his sons would still be in power and the rape rooms would still be open. The French, Germans and Russians would be making billions at the expense of Iraqi children. Under pressure from John Kerry's allies in Paris, Moscow and Berlin, the U.N. sanctions are lifted. With U.N. sanctions lifted, Saddam renews his WMD programs. We know he can produce chemical weapons (he's already used them). Nuclear and biological weapons are not far behind.
The consequences of WMDs in the possession of Saddam Hussein are too horrible to contemplate. We have a very clear choice on Nov. 2. We can support the man who toppled a ruthless dictator or we can support a man who coddles up to the dictator's enablers.
Robert Huck, Springfield