Making Sense, By Michael Reagan
It's desperation time for the Democrats. Dejected because prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald didn't indict just about everybody in the White House and confirm their fantasies about lies that were never told, they are demanding that the president apologize for I'm not quite sure what.
Their cardboard hero, Joe Wilson, runs around claiming that the president used 16 words to lie us into war when he said in his state of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Pay attention to that. He didn't say that Saddam tried to buy African uranium - he said the Brits said he did. In other words, that statement was true. The British government did tell us that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Moreover, they still insist that Saddam sought to buy yellowcake from Africa. Moreover, the French and German intelligence services also agreed with that claim.
In the run-up to the war every major Western intelligence agency also agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats who voted to invade Iraq all saw the same evidence about WMDs that the president saw, and they accepted it just as he did. Where are the lies here?
So, from what I can gather, the liberals who run the Democrat party want the president to lie by saying he lied, and want him to apologize.
Okay, let's play their game and go through the looking glass into liberal wonderland. Let's say that everything the liberal media, and the liberal, pundits and the liberal Democrats and poor disoriented Joe Wilson are saying is the absolute truth. The President of the United States lied us into war in Iraq. So how do we set things right?
Obviously we have to apologize to the Iraqis for having invaded their country. Wouldn't we be obliged to put that statue of Saddam Hussein back up and reinstall Saddam in his marble palaces from which we unjustly evicted him and allow him once again to be Iraq's absolute dictator? Shouldn't we apologize for having driven him from power and then hand him a ton of money to rebuild his all his palaces, finance the reconstruction of his country and his torture and rape rooms, and re-establish his secret police?
Let's say we did all that to right the terrible wrong we did to Iraq by allowing ourselves to be deceived into attacking them? What would we expect to happen?
I think the answer is obvious. Saddam would systematically murder, maim, rape or imprison the millions of Iraqis who cooperated with the coalition forces in trying to democratize their nation. Then he'd torture and imprison or execute millions more for having voted in a new constitution and a new government. And he'd be back in Niger tying to buy yellowcake and bribing UN officials with "oil for food" money.
If we were egregiously wrong in invading Iraq shouldn't we pay for our mistake by putting everything we destroyed back together?
One more thing. While we're wandering through liberal wonderland, let's think the way liberals think. They believe that it is the right thing to do to take from those who have, skim a lot off the top to finance the liberal bureaucracy, and give it to the have-nots, in small doses, of course. You have to keep them dependent on the Democrat Party. The more you take from the haves-who you think became haves by dishonest means (you know, by working for it)-the more you'll have to expand your bureaucracy and ladle out more goodies to the have-nots living on your liberal plantation. And since we owe so much to the Iraqis for having unjustly attacked them, should we not expand our generosity to them and bring them onto the progressive plantation?
I'm sure Saddam would go along. After all, his party, the Baathist party, was a socialist party, just like today's Democrat Party. I guess that's why they feel guilty over having helped get rid of him.
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.