GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Chicago Tribune: Iraq War Was Justified

December 29, 2005 by Bruce Carroll

There is a lot of buzz on the cable news shows today about this Editorial from yesterday’s Chicago Tribune (hat tip – Rhymes with Right)

Judging the case for war – Chicago Tribune main editorial, December 28, 2005

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration’s arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured–those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.

< ...>

After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.

Seventeen days before the war, this page reluctantly urged the president to launch it. We said that every earnest tool of diplomacy with Iraq had failed to improve the world’s security, stop the butchery–or rationalize years of UN inaction. We contended that Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, had demanded this conflict.

Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now–what this matrix chronicles– affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003. We hope these editorials help Tribune readers assess theirs.

Following the editorial, the Tribune lays out the NINE arguments for war (not just one!) that the Bush Administration discussed with the American public before March 2, 2003. This is a remarkable and responsible piece of journalism — a welcome oasis in the midst of the MSM’s Bush bashing Sahara desert.

Read the whole thing!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Filed Under: War On Terror

Comments

  1. Bobo says

    December 29, 2005 at 6:48 pm - December 29, 2005

    Gee, I didn’t know that Rove controlled the Chicago Tribune too.

  2. hank says

    December 29, 2005 at 6:50 pm - December 29, 2005

    BTW Where did Rove go?
    Suddenly he’s vanished.

  3. ColoradoPatriot says

    December 29, 2005 at 9:22 pm - December 29, 2005

    I wonder where this editorial was all summer long when all we heard from them and others was negativity.

    Welcome to the real world, Tribune. Let’s hope it’s real.

  4. Calarato says

    December 29, 2005 at 9:38 pm - December 29, 2005

    I would never expect Rove in the spotlight. He’s a behind-the-scenes, campaign-manager type of guy.

    So, Hank, I understand your question as “BTW, why has the MSM suddenly dropped its weird obsession with Rove?” My guess: Perhaps they realized it wasn’t working (to tear down Bush), so they moved on to NSAgate or whatever was next on the agenda.

  5. Calarato says

    December 29, 2005 at 9:41 pm - December 29, 2005

    (the DNC’s agenda for them, I mean)

  6. Conservative Guy says

    December 30, 2005 at 12:55 am - December 30, 2005

    I don’t think Colonel McCormick would like this at all. He was an isolationist, and so was the Tribune when he was running it.

  7. Bobo says

    December 30, 2005 at 1:18 am - December 30, 2005

    Where is Rove? He ‘s spent the last month making the editorial board of the Trib his beyatches.

  8. sonicfrog says

    December 30, 2005 at 1:56 am - December 30, 2005

    This story is only allowed to happen because now there is something else that Bush can be impeached on – NSA spying.

    I’ld rather have a President that is willing to go to the limits of the law to try and insure we are as safe as possible, that one who is always looking over his / her shoulder for civil rights violations.

    PS. We won the Revolutionary War because we intercepted a communique saying that a major campaign would be waged by the Brittish troops at Yorkstown in 1781. If that same thing happened today, the army would be barred from using the intel ’cause it was obtained in a way that violated the civil rights of the messenger – he was hanged on the spot!

  9. sonicfrog says

    December 30, 2005 at 1:58 am - December 30, 2005

    PS Yorktown has no “S” in it. Wine getting in the way of typing. The Sonic-mate is awesome tonight. Wine and chocolate….

  10. ThatGayConservative says

    December 30, 2005 at 2:22 am - December 30, 2005

    #9

    Sonic Mate? Who needs wine and chocolate? 😉

    At any rate, the story won’t matter to the left. They’re proven wrong constantly and they still stick to their lying points. For example, just look at the 2000 election. Even if The DNC Times reported that Bush didn’t lie, they would continue the War On Truth.

  11. ThatGayConservative says

    December 30, 2005 at 2:34 am - December 30, 2005

    Interesting note:

    The liberals whine that we’ve killed either 30,000 or 100,000 “innocent civillians”. That hardly comes close to Hussein’s numbers.

  12. Conservative Guy says

    December 30, 2005 at 2:41 am - December 30, 2005

    11. True, but the liberals don’t have to feel as guilty about Hussein’s numbers. Hussein’s numbers are bad, but to liberals our lower numbers are worse because it’s our government and our tax dollars that are responsible. The liberal guilt factor is much higher, and as we see repeatedly most liberal actions and policies are motivated by the attempt to make liberals feel good about themselves.

  13. Calarato says

    December 30, 2005 at 3:32 am - December 30, 2005

    Bush can’t be impeached on the NSA thing. Not unless the government has been spying on ordinary citizens for partisan or repressive purposes, which no mainstream source has charged yet or any evidence of.

    The Administration has a track record of going up to the limit of what the law allows, but carefully doing a ton of legal reviews so they never go OVER what the law allows. I doubt they suddenly lost their heads in the NSA case.

    So I’m fairly confident that when all is said and done, there will be no rationally impeachable offenses. And no electing of an irrational majority (Democrats) to impeach on trumped-up offenses.

  14. ThatGayConservative says

    December 30, 2005 at 6:15 am - December 30, 2005

    #13

    What gets me, though, are the libs who have some misconception that the governement would actually give a damn about what they do.

  15. sonicfrog says

    December 30, 2005 at 9:22 am - December 30, 2005

    “True, but the liberals don’t have to feel as guilty about Hussein’s numbers. Hussein’s numbers are bad, but to liberals our lower numbers are worse because it’s our government and our tax dollars that are responsible.”

    Not entirely true. Remember – WE (Evil Reagan) are the ones that supported Saddam in the eighties and Rumsfeld gave him the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds. WE (Incompetent Bush 1) are the ones who didn’t take Saddam out in GW 1 and didn’t give the Shia uprising promised support, which led to Saddam butchering them as a result of our failure. Then there is the UN sanctions (led by the US) which starved and killed innocent women and children. So you see, even though we did not do the killing DIRECTLY, it is still our fault!

  16. V the K says

    December 30, 2005 at 9:27 am - December 30, 2005

    #11 — Liberals tend to confuse accidental casualties as morally equivalent with a tyrant’s deliberate butchery.

    Plus which, the left has a built-in way to tweak the numbers. Technically, since none of the insurgents or terrorists in Iraq is a uniformed soldier, their deaths can be counted as “civilian” as well.

  17. North Dallas Thirty says

    December 30, 2005 at 11:24 am - December 30, 2005

    But of course, after taking the casualty counts, they turn right around and argue that the insurgents and terrorists are protected by the Geneva Conventions on warfare, which require that you be in uniform and identify yourself as a member of the military.

    But like I keep saying, the 2006 campaign can be nicely handled if the RNC is smart enough to air snippets of Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, etc. protesting against our “torture” at Abu Ghirab, then show on split-screen videos of Saddam’s torture at Abu Ghirab coupled with Kennedy/Dean/etc. screaming about how Saddam wasn’t that bad and the war was “unnecessary” and “unjustified”.

    I live for the day that a MSM reporter has the balls to ask a Democrat, “So, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein murdered, tortured, and imprisoned over a million Iraqis of all ages, including toddlers and infants, for crimes as simple as their parents being political dissenters, you would still say that removing him from power was unnecessary and unjustified?”

  18. Peter Hughes says

    December 30, 2005 at 11:37 am - December 30, 2005

    Regarding the Left’s ultimate goal of Bush’s impeachment because of NSA “wiretapping” of NON-CITIZENS in the USA – here’s some welcome news from FNC:

    The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush’s secret domestic spying program, Justice officials said Friday. The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    Michelle Malkin has a link to this article. Gee, where have we heard about leaks before?? Oh, yes – Valerie Plame! The DNC chickens are coming home to roost….

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

  19. hank says

    December 30, 2005 at 12:42 pm - December 30, 2005

    No Calarado, I didn’t mean that. It was a straightforward question. Sometimes a “cigar” is just a cigar.

  20. The Yenta says

    December 30, 2005 at 5:33 pm - December 30, 2005

    Inquest: an inquiry into the cause of an unexpected death

    Don’t they mean inquiry

  21. ThatGayConservative says

    December 31, 2005 at 2:12 am - December 31, 2005

    #19

    Of course you can use it as a dildo. As the most corrupt president in history, though, a cigar is just a cigar and it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.

  22. Peter Hughes says

    December 31, 2005 at 11:26 am - December 31, 2005

    Well said, #21. My sentiments exactly.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

  23. Calarato says

    December 31, 2005 at 12:52 pm - December 31, 2005

    #19 – Right, Hank. And I was only saying, the real question is, why would Rove ever have been in the spotlight?

    Sometimes a real question is just a real question!

  24. hank says

    December 31, 2005 at 1:07 pm - December 31, 2005

    No. I asked my “real” question.
    You answered yours.
    I wish I could have done that on exams. Imagine…

    I understand your question , “What is our goal in The Middle East”, as “why did the chicken cross the road”.

  25. ThatGayConservative says

    January 1, 2006 at 4:25 am - January 1, 2006

    #24

    All the while you still can’t tell us what laws Bush has violated, which rights you have personally lost or even where the Bush mandated gay death camps are.

  26. hank says

    January 1, 2006 at 7:58 am - January 1, 2006

    I don’t know who you’re talking to. I never mentioned any of of those things. I think that you have directed your question to the person.

  27. hank says

    January 1, 2006 at 8:05 am - January 1, 2006

    to the “WRONG” person

  28. Calarato says

    January 1, 2006 at 9:59 pm - January 1, 2006

    #23 – #27 – If I could extract any point or idea from of all that incoherence, I would…

  29. hank says

    January 1, 2006 at 10:51 pm - January 1, 2006

    Well Calarato. I did just ask an innocent question. Here in New York, Karl Rove doesn’t have as low a news profile as he must have in other newspapers.
    But lately, he’s disappeared. That was all it was.

    As to the rest, I have no idea. “Death camps”?

  30. Pat says

    January 2, 2006 at 10:04 am - January 2, 2006

    # 29 Regarding “death camps,” apparently some liberal loggers and others said that if Bush got elected and/or reelected, that there would be death camps for gays. Some posters (not all) seemed to have projected that claim by all those who strongly opposed Bush. As far as I know, the worst Bush has done regarding gays was refuse to push for the repeal of a law that criminalized homosexual activity while governor of Texas.

  31. King vidor says

    January 2, 2006 at 8:11 pm - January 2, 2006

    “What gets me, though, are the libs who have some misconception that the governement would actually give a damn about what they do.”

    And that’s the right in a nutshel. They don’t give a shit about anyone who’s not straight, xstian or wealthy. Unless of course they have a war to run badly, then get moist in the panties when poll numbers dip because of their incompatence, then make desperate pleas for “unity” from those of us they didn’t care about in the first place. Ha! Fuck-the-fuck-off. You and your kids can go and die for the right wing mistakes. Go ahead, join the military and do your part for a gov. that doesn’t care about the other half of the country. And when your flag draped coffin arrives at some military base where cameras aren’t allowed, we won’t care either, ok? That cool? Great. Now just go off and die quietly and take rush, hannity and o’rielly with you.

  32. VinceTN says

    January 2, 2006 at 9:01 pm - January 2, 2006

    Is it too much to hope that the Dems will use your eloquent summary for their 2006 national campaign, King? That party really needs to die off as quickly as possible to make room for an American one.

  33. Calarato says

    January 3, 2006 at 2:04 am - January 3, 2006

    KV’s fulminating about Republicans being the party of the “wealthy” is particularly humorous, considering it is the Democrats who are more often the party of trust fund babies, Big Business and billionaire contributors.

    The Democrats had most of the big-name, billionaire contributors in the 2004 campaign, for sure.

    Republicans will slightly more often have more of a constituency with small business (mom-n-pop, hardworking immigrants, etc.).

  34. Investor Business Daily says

    March 15, 2006 at 11:19 am - March 15, 2006

    Anybody know how we get an RSS feed for this blog? I am not very tech savvy and would really like to get updated info on this blog. Thanks!

  35. Business Form says

    March 15, 2006 at 12:24 pm - March 15, 2006

    How can I get an RSS feed on this blog? I am new to this and really like the content being discussed here

  36. cigar cutter says

    March 27, 2006 at 1:06 pm - March 27, 2006

    Hi to all!!! My name is Harry Schwartz & I was searching around on Google for info on Cigar Smoking and Cigars I found your Blog. Congrats to everyone on such a fine job. Very nice Blog Design, and the Template Set-up is really awesome!

  37. Goldsextoyshop says

    October 5, 2006 at 6:03 pm - October 5, 2006

    Great blog! You can find the rss feed on the url
    http://gaypatriot.net/feed

Categories

Archives