When I hear some of the revisionist spin being served out these days, I wonder if (1) I’ve been living a bad dream the past six years, or (2) some people are delusional enough to believe this kind of thing. Here’s what Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said on Friday (via Think Progress):

Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney’s arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday’s Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for “mischaracterizing” the reasons for U.S. involvement.
“The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up,” Inhofe said.
. . .
Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were “incidental” to the decision to invade Iraq.
“The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps.”

Uh, right. So in the fall of 2002, when the Bush administration suggested that mushroom clouds might rise over American cities, it wasn’t really talking about the threat of WMDs, was it? That’s media spin. Bush, Rice, et a.l were actually offering a meteorological discussion on cloud formations. Get it straight, Democrats.

I think a majority of Americans would agree that a preemptive war is justified only against countries that pose an imminent threat to Americans. But what does that mean?
Merriam-Webster’s: “ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head”. Put another way, a clear and present danger.
Take a look at the novel definition Secretary of State Rice offered yesterday on ABC’s This Week:

“I think that — an imminent threat. Certainly Iraq posed a threat,” Rice responds. “The question was, was it going to get worse over time or was it going to get better.”
Rice goes on to say that the Bush administration assessment was that the threat from Iraq was “getting worse” and had to be dealt with.
“But [Iraq was] not an imminent threat,” presses Stephanopoulous.
“George, the question of imminence isn’t whether or not someone will strike tomorrow, it’s whether you believe you’re in a stronger position today to deal with the threat or whether you’re going to be in a stronger position tomorrow,” replies Rice. “It was the president’s assessment that the situation in Iraq was getting worse from our point of view.”

Lovely. By Rice’s standard, a decision to preemptively attack another country hinges not on their capability to strike us, but rather on our capability to strike them.
What’s wrong with this picture? First there’s the moral considerations of, you know, killing a bunch of people who don’t pose an immediate danger to you. Then there’s the speculative nature of this policy. Even the best leaders are limited in projecting what risks lie ahead. Clearly, the current White House bunch has demonstrated it’s not too accurate in reading the future.
This is important because unexpected developments might help avert a crisis. What if there’s a change in power, or a regional shift that lessens hostilities? A dispute which appeared like it could head to confrontation might never reach the tipping point. But using Rice’s formulation, a president might decide to launch a war before we even reach such a climax.
Which gets us to Iraq. Even if you buy this imminent threat rationale, the question still stands: why did we have to attack there in the spring of 2003? What was the supposed risk in waiting to attack until 2004? 2005?
Call me a cynic, but I suspect political rather than military considerations prompted the decision. Rice suggests that the president is to assess a threat based his ability to launch a war. Back in 2002/3 America was still coming to terms with 9/11 and there was plenty of ambiguity about Iraq’s weapons programs. Had Bush waited, support for his war would have been undermined by a less panicked public and by UN weapon’s inspectors busily not finding alleged weapons. So he had to act before the “situation”–i.e., the truth emerging–deteriorated any further.
Yes, this White House can be that twisted.

Really, how stupid does the White House think we are? Here’s Deputy Spokesperson Dana Perino:

Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq – and the President listened. Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq – and the President will veto its bill.

A baffling statement on several counts:
(1) I thought Mr. Bush didn’t listen to polling. I thought Mr. Bush listened to the commanders in the field. Why the change after the election?
(2) I think most Americans know why they voted the way they did. But lest we need a reminder:

[T]the [latest WSJ/NBC news] poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn’t be a deadline.

I wonder: if a person continues to deny reality for an extended period, does he or she start to believe the fiction? Or does it continue to be a deliberate act?
(3) How is it possible that Democrats can vote for defeat? As far as I knew, major military combat operations in Iraq ended four years ago. That’s what Mr. Bush told us. How, then, can defeat even be a possibility now?

If there was ever any question as to whether or not Mrs. Bush was a co-dweller in the President’s reality bubble, those doubts were put to rest yesterday:

“No one suffers more than their President and I do when we watch this.”
Yes, if there has ever a reluctant warrior occupying the White House, it’s been Mr. Bush. The heavy burden of leading the nation into war has visibly weighed on his countenance since 2001. Mindful of the great sacrifice he and Laura are making, he has resorted to using American military force only when it was absolutely the last available option. Who can forget the last hours of the American/Iraqi peace negotiations, when Mr. Bush tearfully plead for Mr. Hussein to give UN inspectors one more chance to search suspected weapons sites? Even today, while Defeatocrats mindlessly call to put more American troops in harm’s way, the first family’s suffering has been an anchor of restraint amid the clamor for more bloodshed.
Last night I watched part of Bill Moyers’ documentary “Buying the War,” in which he outlined how most of the mainstream media were willing accomplices in the Bush administration’s campaign to launch the Iraq war. Quite a trip down memory lane. From time to time it’s enlightening to look back and reflect on how we got where we are today:

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

In this violent age, I’m glad we have a president who truly feels the horror and pain of war. Because that type of commander-in-chief only leads use into war when it’s necessary to defend the republic. It’s been a blessing, hasn’t it?

My sister and family came here last weekend to visit.
Having not spend much time around babies, I found my nephew Seth amusing to watch. He has a five-second attention span (five seconds less than mine) and periodically utters random shrieks. Undoubtedly the novelty of this behavior would wear off if I had to deal with it 24/7, but it’s pretty entertaining in short doses.
Click on the image for more pictures of the festivities.