Venstresiden fortsetter å lyve om årsaken til at USA gikk til krig mot Saddam Husseins diktatur i Irak. Sist ute er en gjeng rockestjerner med Bruce Springsteen og REM i spissen http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/musikk/article876166.ece .

Nedenfor gjengir vi fra www.frontpagemag.com, et spørsmål fra en venstreorientert om årsaken til krigen, og det svar som David Horowitz, redaktør av FrontPageMagazine, gir.

(Dette handler om begrunnelsen for krigen. Vi vil i neste uke komme med en kommentar om situasjonen i Irak nå.)

Innsenderens spørsmål: That anyone can justify the war in Iraq is beyond belief. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no link between Saddam and Osama and no eminent [sic] danger of our being attacked by Iraq. In its early stages, it was nothing more than a fight between a 250 pound senior bully attacking a 150 pound sophomore bully and very easy for Bush to claim, "Mission Accomplished." Given the fact he had no clue about the region and the perils in involving us in a ground war with no plan beyond the early "bullying," it is absurd to think that he should be given the chance to take us into further conflicts. He is, without question, the poorest prepared person to ever sit in the office of the President. He spent 31 years of his life as a profane, foul-mouthed, bully, prone to addictions (tobacco, alcohol and drugs) and never did or had anything which he earned by being any more than a Bush with millions of dollars at his disposal. He never bothered learning anything, never prepared himself to be a leader and, as President, has been the only thing he has ever been, a cheerleader. As long as Bush sits in office, this country is at grave peril.

Horowitz svarer: Only a person ignorant of the rationale for the war as expressed in Bush's 1) speech to the UN, September 2002; 2) State of the Union, January 2003 and 3) explanation for the war at the time -- February 2003 -- could be so foolish (and arrogant) as to write an email like this. The rationale for the war had nothing to do with whether Saddam could attack us directly or not in the spring of 2003 -- i.e., whether there was an "imminent threat;" or whether he had WMDS or not; or whether there was a link between Saddam and Osama. You believe this because you have been taken in by the hysterical, mind-bogglingly false propaganda of the left as has poured out of the unhinged brains of Michael Moore and Al Gore and Ted Kennedy and the like. They are stupendous and wretched liars all, and in the case of Gore, Kerry and the Democratic leadership they are convicted by their own words before the fact.

The rationale for the war -- supported by Kerry, Daschle and the Democratic Party was UN Resolution 1441 and 17 disregarded UN resolutions before that, all of which were the basis of the 1991 truce (we were in fact at war with Saddam from 1991 until the invasion of Iraq -- how quickly Democrats who signed on to the war in 1998 forget); the fact that Saddam had launched wars of aggression twice; the fact that he had PROGRAMS to develop WMDS and had already used them; and finally the fact that he could not be contained (since we could not keep 200,000 troops on his desert borders indefinitely). Saddam was given a UN ultimatum on November 8, 2003: Do this or else. On December 7, 2002 the deadline passed and he had not met the ultimatum. America's choice was to enforce international law or abandon it. The French and Russians and Chinese for obvious reasons couldn't care less about enforcing international law. So the US and the British went ahead and did it. And then the Democrats betrayed the war, the nation and the peace.

You can find the details of this great betrayal in my new book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left available here.