Were You Mislead?

I see in the press that the "Bush Lied" about WMD's mantra has become an unquestioned part of the dialogue on the War to Liberate Iraq.

After all, whenever you hear the Democrats say the more politically acceptable "We were mislead", they are implying that Bush lied.

What's always missing in all the debates on the issue is the question "were you mislead"? Certainly those of who still support the liberation of Iraq don't feel mislead.

Even more peculiar is even those who opposed the liberation of Iraq and keep repeating "we were mislead" don't feel mislead. Everybody thought Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMD's and the Left didn't care. So how can they now say they were mislead? They didn't care. Of course, they are referring to those who supported the war. But the question is never asked "do you personally feel mislead"? They don't and we don't.

We feel this way for a variety of reasons:

We realize that Saddam had WMD's at one time.

We realize that Saddam used WMD's on his enemies.

We realize that Saddam would rebuild his arsenal the first chance he got.

We realize there were plenty other reasons for liberating Iraq.

We realize the significant difference between "lying" and and being mistaken.

No one but the most conspiratorial and ignorant of the Left think Bush knew he wouldn't find stockpiles of WMD's. The U.N., France, Germany, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore...all are on record talking of the dangers of Saddam's WMD's. That's what makes the Democrats criticism so disingenuous.

Since we're on the subject of "lying" and "misleading" let's look at their record on reasons for opposing the war.

War for oil.
Empire
Israel ordered us
Halliburton
Finish Daddy's business

Are the people who espouse these ideas lying, misleading...or simply nuts? Whatever the answer, I don't know why anybody should care what they say.

After all, when a movement's slogan "Bush Lied" is itself a lie, we are not dealing with people who care a great deal about the truth.

Imagine Clinton

Just around the time we were preparing to liberate Iraq from one of the most brutal dictators the world had ever seen, I remember reading about a multi-denominational "peace" protest in Orange County.

Of course, there was no "peace" in Iraq even prior to liberation (ask the Kurds), but that didn't seem to concern these church goers. A more honest term would be "anti-liberation" protest.

Odder still, was they all got together and sang "Imagine" by John Lennon.

Whenever I hear "Imagine", I think of "When a Man Loves a Woman". These have to be the two most misunderstood songs in history. "When a Man Loves a Woman" (sleep out in the rain, spend his last dime, bring him misery...) is almost less romantic than "Imagine" is spiritual.

I thought of this when I heard about the 80th birthday party for Shimon Peres:

But Clinton stole the show. He was mobbed by reporters and admirers upon arrival, and was invited to the stage to sing John Lennon's "Imagine" with a choir of 40 Arab and 40 Jewish children.

Close your eyes and "Imagine" the scene for yourself:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Now, some might not find it odd for church groups and former presidents to sing about "no heaven", "no religion" and "no countries". I "Imagine" Bill Clinton and a few of those people in that "peace" protest heard the words as they were coming out of their mouths and had puzzled looks on their faces, even if only for that line about "no possessions".