-
Andrew Sullivan writes:
In 2002, we were told, and many of us rolled over, that we had no choice but to invade Iraq. And that time was of the essence. And that inaction was far more dangerous than action.
Funny, I remember Andrew as the one doing the rolling. .... [2002 Daily Dish archives conveniently inaccessible] ... [Thks to alert kf reader BJH.] ...
Update: Readers are more resourceful than I am. Here, for example, is Andrew "rolling over" in May, 2002:
IS BUSH SURRENDERING? Dreadful news today that the president may be wavering in his intent to destroy the Iraqi regime. If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president. He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade on his desk. He said it almost proudly. His military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration. After all that this president has said, after all that he has asked, a reversal on this central question would be nothing short of a staggering betrayal of trust, a reversal of will and determination. Of course, there should be no peremptory, rushed or botched war. Of course, all options should be examined. But the signs are unmistakable. This president, having begun as an improvement on his father, is showing signs that he could end up as something even worse. It's time he heard from his supporters that this is a critical matter on which there can be no compromise. If he balks, it will be worse than his father's betrayal on taxes. It will be a betrayal of the very security of the American people.
3:39 P.M.
___________________________
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?