At It Again
The regrettable Madeleine Albright is at it again.
In her piece in this morning's LA Times, she writes about the Iraq war:
The purpose of the invasion was to seize weapons that did not exist and to sever a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that had not been made.
She goes on to denounce "failures of leadership and intelligence." Has she lost her memory?
First, as everyone knows, President Bush was following policy that had been set during the Clinton Administration -- the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government -- when she was, at least nominally, the Secretary of State.
Second, as to the supposed nonexistence of Saddam-Al Qaeda links, does Madeleine Albright not read the newspaper?
What an embarassment.
In her piece in this morning's LA Times, she writes about the Iraq war:
The purpose of the invasion was to seize weapons that did not exist and to sever a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that had not been made.
She goes on to denounce "failures of leadership and intelligence." Has she lost her memory?
First, as everyone knows, President Bush was following policy that had been set during the Clinton Administration -- the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government -- when she was, at least nominally, the Secretary of State.
Second, as to the supposed nonexistence of Saddam-Al Qaeda links, does Madeleine Albright not read the newspaper?
What an embarassment.
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:00 AM
2 Comments:
Sept 11 occurred not from an abundance of hatred, but for a profound lack of respect. The lesson of that day was that WITHOUT WMD, WITHOUT a missile delivery system, our shores could be reached.
The Albrights of the world not only fail to grasp this lesson, they wish us to believe that Saddam failed to see it also.
The argument as to whether or not Saddam had WMD is irrelevant. The fact that he had motive, and a clear record of attemps to do us harm should be enough to justify preemption.
Of course she reads the papers! It's just that she doesn't believe them, either.
Who does? Who should?
Post a Comment
<< Home