The Wages of Nagging

This article is amazing. Here’s what happened: President Bush, acting on a decade of intelligence from a many reliable sources, as well as the claims of Saddam Hussein himself, invades Iraq and deposes Hussein. Then “anti-war” Americans spend more than a year denouncing him for this decision and ridiculing him for acting on the best available intelligence, because we didn’t find any WMDs in Iraq. Their goal is to restore the pre-Sept. 11th principle that we should never engage in preemptive attack, but should wait until we are struck first.

The natural consequence of all of their protests is, of course, to make future presidents far less likely to act on the same kind of intel when it comes to another confrontation, because such a future president will, of course, think to himself “Well, Bush acted on intel like this and look what happened to him! So I better wait a little longer.” Such an incentive is just what we don’t want to have in the post-Sept. 11th world. Nevertheless, the “anti-war” side continues to set us up for that day when a Kerry or a Clinton Administration hesitates to act out; they insist that we should delay, delay, delay in any future case.

And now they complain that America lacks the necessary credibility to confront Iran! Well, whose fault is that? Is it the fault of a president who, again, decided that we should confront threats before they explode in our faces, or is it the fault of those who have protested and written and screamed and hollered in efforts to restore the pre-September 11th mentality? Astounding!