My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« 2004 Democratic platform: ‘Americans will be safer in a world of democracies’ | Main | ‘Traitors’ to the conservative ‘left’ »

July 27, 2004


Erik Svane

To put the controversy surrounding one of the main causes of the Iraq War into perspective, we have to go back some 60 years: Over two hundred U.S. Rangers were among the 135,000 Allied troops that stormed the coast of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Their mission was to climb the cliffs of the Pointe du Hoc and destroy a battery of heavy artillery that threatened both the Omaha and the Utah landing beaches, not to mention Dwight Eisenhower's invasion fleet. After scaling the 30-meter-high cliffs under a withering fire, they emerged, bloodied, on the top only to be in for a terrible surprise; no cannons were present. Not expecting the invasion, the Germans had dismantled them and removed them to the rear. …

In the case of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to accuse George W. Bush and Tony Blair of "lying" because no such arms were found in Iraq is akin to saying that Ike and Monty (or Churchill and Roosevelt) lied when they had their staffs include Pointe du Hoc in their battle plans for D-Day.

Read "Did Bush and Blair Lie About WMD?" here:

The comments to this entry are closed.