Maureen Dowd is merely an ‘avatar’ of many other top liberal commentators such as Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, etc. of The New York Times who lack the intellectual integrity to admit that they were totally wrong in their analysis of the war in Iraq and most of all of its victorious outcome. All three, even during the implementation of the Surge Strategy by General Petraeus, believed unshakably that the war was unwinnable.
By Con George-Kotzabasis—A short response to an American liberal
No lies “about Iraq’s involvement with al-Qaeda.” Saddam was aware of the increasing influence and appeal of Al-Qaeda in the Arab world. It takes little imagination to see that for this political reason alone he had an interest as the most powerful leader of Arab Sunnis to have al-Qaeda on his side, and for the purpose of controlling it. That is why his Intelligence agents had contacts with representatives of bin-Laden from early on during the short domicile of the latter in Sudan and providing his jihadists with training in Iraq.
As for serious argument you shoot yourself on the foot. The Bush administration did not tell “lies about WMDs”. It presented its case for war to the American people on FALSE intelligence information. And as you well know, all the other Intelligence Services of the West, including that of France and Germany, believed that Saddam had WMDs. So if Bush was telling lies, so was doing President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. To transform FALSE INFORMATION into LIES as you do, and so many others from the Liberal intelligentsia continue to do, is to do so at the expense of one’s intellectual integrity.
And to compare “home accidents” with the ceaseless DELIBERATE killing by the jihadists, reveals how much out of your depth you are.
As for the political frolicking of Spain under Prime Minister Zapatero as a serious way to fight global terror, reveals your own credentials as political ‘frolicker’ par excellence.