Filth

I haven't dealt with David Limbaugh in quite a while it feels like. Truthfully I've started avoiding his articles. His whole modus operandi right now is to destroy Senator Kerry. So he's not fun to read. I mean he doesn't have the joie de vivre of his brother, nor does he have the charming insanity of Ann Coulter. Just a grim mean spiritedness that is unpleasant to read.

But I don't get paid the no bucks to just do easy articles. So let's dive right in.

Next, Senator, let's take you at your word -- as utterly unbelievable as it is -- that in 2002 you voted to give President Bush authority to attack Iraq with the understanding -- that you must have divined from some powerful '60s tea leaves -- that he would not attack until he'd satisfied a number of conditions. One of those conditions was that the president would continue to grovel at the defiant feet of Saddam Hussein and ask him countless more times to please quit being so mean to the U.N. weapons inspectors.

OK let's run this down.

I like how Limbaugh makes a big show of taking Senator Kerry at his word and then proceeds to completely distort what he says. Limbaugh can do this, because most people who read his column aren't going to bother going back and seeing what Kerry actually said. That would be work, and as we know, that's too much work.

So aren't you lucky you read Make me a Commentator!!! (ask for it by name). Here is what Kerry actually said.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President . . . any President . . . would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Why did the inspections have to end at the time at which they did? I've never heard a good answer to that question (although I've often heard the non-sequitur "Look we gave him 10 years to disarm."). Limbaugh is apparently pretending, as many on the right do (including the President on occasion) that Saddam Hussein didn't let the inspectors back in. It's also worth noting that Limbaugh, his brother, and others on the right were furious at the inspectors for not finding the WMDs immediately, to the point that they accused them of working for Saddam.

I don't know what to say about the suggestion that Kerry required Bush to "grovel at the feet of Saddam Hussein" other than to suggest that Limbaugh may be simply delusional. Or, more likely, he can say what ever he wants and knows it.