Security and stability

Doubts on National Review:

This has become the conventional wisdom (I mean, of the last month or so) among conservatives who support the admin. on Iraq: That if only the President and his people would get out there and explain their case, public support would firm up.

I beg leave to doubt this. The admin. case on Iraq is not hard to grasp, and is, if my own conversations with friends & neighbors can be judged by, widely understood: A secure & stable Iraq is essential to our nation’s long-term security.

I’m not sure the problem is that people haven’t heard this. It may be that people have heard it, but just don’t believe it.

Probably because it’s a crock of equine fertilizer. Iraq was secure and stable prior to the US invasion and occupation. Saddam Hussein was no more of a threat to the USA in 2003 than he was in 1983.

China is a serious threat to our nation’s long-term security and it is both secure and stable. The Congo is insecure and unstable, but it is no threat. As usual, the gap between the administration’s pronouncements and logical credibility is enormous, which is why people, even rock-solid Republicans, no longer believe anything that comes out of the Bush White House.