Wednesday, November 16, 2005

It's all well and good that the Administration is finally striking back at Democrats who have been rather two-faced on the question of whether Hussein had WMDs...

But the fact that there was a consensus back then that Hussein was a danger does not mean the Democrats - or anyone, for that matter - is obligated to sign on to Bush's "Global Democracy Tour 2005".

Bringing democracy to the people of Iraq was about the last reason anyone gave for intervening in Iraq. Invade to eliminate what we believed to be Hussein's WMDs? Sure. Invade to eliminate the suffering of Iraq's people brought on by the rather ineffectual UN sanctions? Sure. Invade to show that rogue states ought not to support terrorists? Sure.

And way, way, way down on the list was invading Iraq in order to solve all of our problems by bringing democracy to the Middle East.

And it's rather disingenuous for the Bush team and the others who are sipping the soup to suggest that because we supported taking Hussein out we are obligated to support Bush's plan to bring peace, love and understanding to the cesspool that is the Middle East.

We're not*.

Americans have the right to ask Bush to outline a plan for getting us out of Iraq... both those of us who supported taking out Hussein as well as those who didn't think he was worth the trouble.

And it's a shame that those on the right, who have been so frustrated by the Democrat's tactics over the past several months, are so glad to finally have Bush and the RNC striking back at the Democrats that they have seemingly signed on to support Bush's refusal to outline objectives, timetables, and benchmarks for getting our troops out of Iraq.

* any more, by the way, than those of us who supported Bush's earlier tax cuts are somehow obligated to support his ludicrous and ridiculous proposals for revamping the tax code.