CrushKerry.com (soon to be renamed AnkleBitingPundits.com, I guess) notes the trouble Sen. Boxer is having with, well, reality:
After Condi had so brilliantly and passionately defended the Iraq war, and the reasoning for it that included cites to reasons other than WMD’s, half-wit Boxer smugly made this astounding statement:
BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.
Brilliant reply by the Senator. Dramatic and forceful.
The only missing ingredient is, well, the truth.
Hmm, we might not be California Senators or math majors here at Crushkerry.com but we think Boxer should “read what they voted on”, because going through the above we found at least 7 reasons (and we could say more, if one counts “enforcing the UN Security Council Resolutions as non-WMD reason, but we won’t), separate and distinct from WMD’s cited in the Resolution.
I’ve somehow ended up debating this again several times in the past week, both online and in conversation. What’s the deal?
Is it better to argue the facts yet again, or to just dismiss what is obviously ignorance when someone says “it was all about the WMDs”?
I fully realize the the WMD situation hasn’t turned out like many (including myself and also including many of the harshest critics of the invasion) expected. I fully realize that our intel was far less reliable than we had reason to expect.
I also realize that the WMD reports say far more than “no WMDs”, even though that’s all that makes the headlines and the evening news.
So is it worth arguing with these folks? They’ve obviously got no interest in the fact of the matter. They’re simply spouting. At the same time, I pride myself on not dismissing positions contrary to mine out of hand.
If a typical American citizen had said what Senator Boxer said, I wouldn’t have been surprised. But the Senator knows what’s in that resolution that she voted on, and she should be held to a higher standard than Joe American.
She’s either mistaken or lying, and I guess I’d hope a Senator wouldn’t be so totally mistaken about something so simple.
And I realize that CrushKerry is a slanted, biased site. Fair enough. If their point is nothing more than biased spin, it should be easy to disprove. Use the comments section.