O'Reilly on the WMD situation

Always entertaining to go through these, so let's begin.

Unfortunately, the WMD situation is now been politicized. Fanatics on the left are screaming about lies and conspiracies. Fanatics on the right are yelling it doesn't matter if any deadly weapons are found in Iraq.

Both sides are wrong as usual. The truth is the WMD issue does matter, and President Bush needs to explain it. Talking Points believes the Iraq war was just, and the progress now being made between Israeli and the Palestinians would never have happened if Saddam Hussein was still in power. Just that alone makes the war worthwhile. We are not even mentioning the mass graves and other horrors of Saddam Hussein.

So, it does matter, but the war was just as of right now? Isn't that saying it doesn't matter? Nevermind the sketchy assumption that Middle East peace is making progress, and that progress is because of the Iraq war or the fact that the mass graves are partly the fault of Bush v1.0. So O'Reilly takes the right wing position, but tries to spin it as the moderate position. No surprise there.

So, there is no question that America has done a good thing for the world. However, when the president of the United States tells the American people that U.S. intelligence has pinpointed deadly weapons and those weapons don't turn up, the President has an obligation to explain.

All Americans must have confidence that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are honest and effective. If the CIA told Mr. Bush there were weapons, did it make a mistake? If so, how did that mistake come about? These are logical questions that have to be answered in order for Americans to feel confident about their government.

But where's the suggestion that Bush distorted the intelligence? That's been the point the left is screaming about (and the point that the right would be questioning if they didn't have so much unfounded blind confidence in Bush). There couldn't have been another agenda, he just needs to explain. Nevermind that anti-war people were screaming about underlying agendas and the validity of Bush's WMD claims, which appear to be coming true.

That being said, it is fair to all the hunt for the weapons to continue without these hysterical accusations of lies and deceit. People making those charges are being irresponsible and hurting the country. Let's face it, there is a good chance that deadly weapons are hidden in Iraq. It is beyond belief that both President Bush and British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, would conspire to lie to the world about this issue. Simply inconceivable.

But it wouldn't be inconcievable that Clinton would've lied to the world about it, would it? And how are we irresponsible? It's irresponsible to not ask questions. Especially when the main points of the opposition to the war are coming true. O'Reilly acts as if these accusations come out of nowhere.

Thus, reasonable people are faced with two conclusions -- one, that the intelligence was wrong, or, two, that more time is needed to find the weapons. Talking Points just asks one thing from President Bush, an update on the situation in the next few weeks. That's a very reasonable request and one the President must take seriously if he wants to advance the cause of the USA throughout the world.

Or the third conclusion, Bush distorted the intelligence. Can't forget that. And didn't you give a few weeks, a few weeks ago? I believe so.

This is why people like O'Reilly. He reassures them that everything is ok, and makes it look like the moderate position, when in fact our discourse has been pulled right enough that moderate right wing positions look like moderate positions. He can avoid asking the really tough questions while making it look like he's just being reasonable.