Boregonian columnist David Reihnhard wrote a nice summary of the shifting goalposts technique used by opponents of the The great liberation of Iraq:
In the beginning, President Bush said he would go to war if Saddam Hussein did not comply with U.N. resolutions, and they said the president needed authority from Congress in order to take military action against Saddam.
And when President Bush went to Congress and Congress overwhelmingly passed the Iraq War resolution, they said President Bush needed to go to the United Nations and seek the United Nations’ agreement.
And when the United Nations passed a one-last-chance resolution threatening “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors, they said that when we said the United Nations must agree we didn’t just mean all the resolutions the United Nations passed or even the latest one, we meant troops and money and moral support.
And when other U.N. members joined President Bush’s “coalition of the willing” and provided troops and money and moral support, they said the troops and money and moral support that they meant were troops and money and moral support from . . . France.
And the war came.
Reminders like this – and the one by Michael Ignatieff – are essential as we enter an election season in which the left will try to pummel President Bush by rewriting history.
David Reinhard? The Oregonian’s little ol’ pathological liar?
That guy shot his wad repeating every lie about Troopergate, Vince Foster, yada yada yada.
And the guy repeats his style- here lying by omission of several important facts:
1. We pulled out the inspectors. They were given pretty free rein.
2. The UN never voted to authorize force, as the UK had wanted- because we never had the votes in the UN to do so.
3. The “coalition of the willng,” mostly has countries that aren’t really doing anything, and those that are, like the Thais, have an offical policy of “We’re going to leave if we come under fire.” I’m not kidding. That’s how “willing” they are!
4. It’s all BS anyway, because let’s face it, the US won’t “liberate” an Iraq if it’s going to do something contrary to US business and neocon interests, which, at the end of the day, isn’t liberation at all. In fact, it’s a lie.