- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"Again, what is your point in continually bringing up Clinton? How does Clinton's stance in 2000 have any bearing on what actions Bush decided to take in 2003? Or on the judgment of Bush's success in the undertaking?"
"Oswald Garrison Villard, a political journalist of the old school, who spent half a century crusading for standards of probity in public administration, once declared that he had never ceased to mar-vel at the shortness of the public’s memory, at the rapidity with which it forgets episodes of scandal and incompetence. It sometimes appeared to him of little use to attack a party for its unethi-cal conduct, for the voters would have no recollection of it. The glee with which the epithet ‘ancient history’ is applied to what is out of sight is of course a part of this barbarous attitude. The man of culture finds the whole past relevant; the bourgeois and the barbarian find relevant only what has some pressing connection with their appetite." - Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences
Actually, the comments I linked to were made in January 2001, not 2000. If Albright and Holbrooke were not lying then when they said Saddam had WMD and, thus, was a clear and present danger at all times, please tell us at what point during the 26 months between January 2001 and March 2003 Saddam got rid of his WMD.
