Why we don’t take the anti-war arguments of “liberals” seriously – Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:50 AM
Do opponents of the war stop to think of how they sound to people not caught up in their Bush-hating, America-doubting psychosis? Evidently not. Pete Wehner who is doing a terrific job in the White House sent out an email with these quotes from Washington Post writer Richard Cohen:
Richard Cohen Now:
“George W. Bush wanted, in effect, to win the second term that George H.W. Bush had lost (to Bill Clinton), and he also wanted to finish the job his father had started with Saddam Hussein. If there is a better explanation for why Bush — not necessarily the neocons around him — so fervently wanted war, I cannot come up with it.” — Richard Cohen, “Can Bush Save Bush?” The
Washington Post, October 3, 2006.
Richard Cohen Then:
Iraq is in violation of U.N. Resolution 1441 — no ifs, ands or buts. It will not account for its weapons of mass destruction — chemical and biological for sure, maybe nuclear down the road. It is ruled by a thug who twice invaded neighboring countries and whose human rights record is as wretched as one could be. There is no need to gild the lily. The case for war is a good one.” — Richard Cohen, “Powellian Propaganda?” The
Washington Post, February 13, 2003.
Oh, and his view of the revenge-the-father canard then:
“Too often, though, compression becomes simplification. Thus we get references to colonialism, oil and militarism and a naive admiration for the Palestinian struggle. George W. Bush is caricatured as a simpleton out to avenge Saddam Hussein’s attempt to assassinate his father or doing the bidding of Big Oil. This is not the compression of wisdom, nor, for that matter, is it art.” — Richard Cohen, “Rhyme Ill-Reasoned,” The
Washington Post, February 18, 2003.