I caught
this article refered by one of my favorite blogs. From the wonderful people at Inside Bay Area, comes this sweety:
Remember, too, that we invaded Iraq primarily because we were told Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat with his weapons of mass destruction. Now the Bush administration acknowledges that wasn't so, but insists there were (are?) other reasons to invade. History is malleable.
I guess history is malleable for this author in any event, since the only advocates of the "immediate threat" came from the left, not the right. Bush's argument was that there was no immediate threat, but that the threat would come eventually, but without warning.
What remains to be seen was why the referral was posted on the libertarian blog. As the focus of the article was the manipulation of public opinion by deciet for "big brother" in the Orwellian vein; this is more than a little ironic.
The rationality of Bush's position is suspect enough, why lie in an attempt to make it worse? It only ruins the credibility of the reporter, and does nothing to address the grievance spoken against.
Libertarians everywhere should be the bastions of truth and trust, not the repeaters of stupid lies that make our own positions look like so much spin. There is a tendency for people to jump on the bandwagon for anyone who bashes the "enemy." But this is foolish, as we've said before. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, but often; just another enemy to be fought on another day.
Let not the truth be hostage to your ideology.
