You know, just when you start to respect someone’s innovative and fun approaches to writing and illustration, they start getting “innovative” with the truth. One of the talented staffers over at BoingBoing has bypassed his brain and republished an opinion piece that rewrites the facts behind the War on Terror in order to push an anti-Bush agenda.
I know, I know. None of these kinds of tactics are new, and normally I just roll my eyes and keep reading. But for some reason, this one just pissed me off.
Here’s what they said:
As NBC News reported back in 2004, U.S. military planners drew up plans to take out Zarqawi three times in 2002 and 2003, but the Bush administration killed the plans each time. Why? Because, military officials told NBC, the Bush administration feared that destroying Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Iraq "could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
If you go and actually read the MSNBC story they reference, you find a very different story.
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.<
In other words, the Bush administration was so worried about the liberal pundits, and trying to avoid launching strikes against a sovereign nation while they sought U.N. approval for a larger invasion
Let's put it another way, the Bush administartion was cautious (maybe too cautious) and tried to play by the book. That’s more than Clinton did when he bombed Iraq in 1998.
It’s not that I don’t think Clinton should have bombed them at the time. I’m just sick of the far left liberal pundits twisting the truth to damn President Bush, all the while praising President Clinton.