Hitchens Nails the Liars

There's been a lot of carping lately from elite members of congress who've said they were duped into war on Iraq by President Bush. Funny, I always believed they thought HalliBush McChimpyHitler was an idiot.

I've never thought of the more left-leaning Senators and Congressmen as brave, but I must have been wrong as they are actually admitting that a moronic Commander-in-Chief forced them by the use of intellect into saying "yea" on the most historically significant issue they'll ever cast a vote for.

That my friends takes some serious huevos to admit.

Hitch has some thoughts:

A prize, then, for investigative courage, to Milbank and Pincus. They have identified the same problem, though this time upside down, as that which arose from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, during the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1998. That legislationÂ?which passed the Senate without a dissenting voteÂ?did expressly call for the removal of Saddam Hussein but did not actually mention the use of direct U.S. military force.

Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.

Let's hearken back to those crazy days in the aftermath of 9/11. You remember, that day when 19 Islamofascists flew three planes into buildings killing thousands and another plane into a field in western Pennsylvania.

Well, President Bush invaded Afghanistan and within a short period obliterated the ruling Taliban. He then set his sights on Saddam Hussein, a man who had started two wars during his tenure killing a few hundred thousand. He also used WMD on a disgruntled and oppressed group of people who had the misfortune of occupying land he ruled and oppressed.

The idiot president, using intelligence available to most members of congress, made a strong case for war. The argument was persuasive: A madman and his sons ruled with an iron fist and used rape and murder as tools to cow the population (for most sane people, that would be justification enough,) he also had constructed a nuclear power plant with the aid of France that the Israelis's were prescient enough to dispatch with all haste. What else did the lame-brained president use as justification? I seem to recall that he mentioned a thing or two about establishing democracy in the mideast in an attempt to stabilize the volatile region.

What else? I believe he had about mid-way down his list, weapons of mass destruction. You remember that, don't you. The weapons that inspectors like Scott Ritter said were there and when it was lucrative to him said they weren't. The WMD that John Kerry, Bill Clinton and every other leading Democrat said were there when Slick Willy was launching cruise missiles into Baghdad and the Sudan to cover up his dalliance with a not-so-skinny intern.

Now we are deep into the war, a war that the media has turned into Vietnam II, even though the progress there has been astounding (at least from what the soldiers whose actual boots are on the ground say).

The leaderless minority party has no ideas of their own so they drift around aimlessly and spew inane rhetoric at the president.

Sorry my dear elected ones, you are on the record and the hypocrisy is clear. You can claim that were duped by a brainless, lame duck president all you wish. The facts are clear and you are all being shown for the gutless, poll following scrubs you really are.

Historians will take a good, hard look back on this era and determine whether Bush was right or wrong. They will also put things in their proper perspective with regards to your pretzel logic.

I believe the intellectually honest historians will be kinder to Mr. Bush than they will be to the elites in the minority party.

Update: Bill Bennett whacks Rockefeller upside the head.

Update 2: More hypocrisy here.

Update 3: It's never ending, even extending to the blogosphere. Kevin Drum not only drinks the Kool-aid; he mainlines it.