Indeed, where’s the outrage?

With David Kay’s resignation, press interviews and Senate testimony, and the report issued earlier this month from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, disapproving of the decision to invade Iraq, we ve seen a renewed Democrat outrage and a seeming injection of credibility into their candidates issue-starved campaigns. (By the way what does Dean’s constant rant, “Take back the flag,” mean?) But the anti-war/anti-Bush coalition (for brevity, the AWAB’s) attacks on this administration s decision to wage what arguably is one of the most benevolent wars of liberation ever is really rage over Bush’s semantics and is amplified by an obsequious media ruse which has excerpted Kay’s statements to suit its agenda. And the press has largely omitted many of Kay’s statements such as, “I actually think what we learned during the inspection(s) is that Iraq was a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was before the war.”

Director Tenet’s Senate testimony corroborates Kay’s in that he referred to Iraqi programs aimed at developing nuclear, biologic, chemical weapons and moreover Hussein’s desire to deceive the first Gulf War victors as to how mature these programs were. Ultimately, the danger that this president had to confront was a surprise in the form of a more lethal attack than was 9/11. More »