Democrats for Saddam by Patrick Hynes
In Iraq, the trial of Saddam Hussein will recommence today. The former president of Iraq is to face a series of trials for his crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, here in the United States, the manner in which Hussein was brought to justice – the U.S. led invasion of 2003 – faces a trial of its own. Senate Democrats have all but overtly charged President George W. Bush with lying Americans into war (though RWN readers know full well this implication is a cheesy and seditious political stunt.) These two events, occurring conterminously, provide the White House with a powerful opportunity, if played correctly, not only to regain the upper hand in the ongoing Iraq debate, but also, in my opinion, to end this silly debate permanently.
The White House only now has just begun to fight back. Why they allowed things to get this far is beyond reasoning. Nevertheless, here we are. And the president and his surrogates need to call his critics out on the carpet: They cannot retroactively oppose the Iraq War and agree with the prosecution of Saddam Hussein at the same time. I have made this argued over at Ankle Biting Pundits and will continue to do so until the GOP and the White House take up the charge of challenging anti-war liberals with implicit defense of Saddam Hussein.
Simply put, if George W. Bush lied us into war then the prosecution of Saddam Hussein is a sham; Saddam is the innocent victim of George W. Bush’s zealous war hawkery. This is true if Bush’s critics are of the moderate “one more resolution” variety, the moonbat “no war for oil” variety, or even the present day revisionists who supported the war once and told the same “lies” that Bush has told.
The question remaining is whether or not the Bush administration, which has been surprisingly cordial to its enemies has the gumption to challenge the likes of Harry Reid, et al on the deplorable position they have taken on Iraq.
If you enjoyed this post by Patrick Hynes, you can read more of his work at Ankle Biting Pundits.