You know the classic definition of a liberal or a Democrat -- someone who's too polite (or broad-minded) to take his own side in argument? Well, as The Washington Times has just learned, the problem with getting a disaffected old-school Democrat to try to undermine his party's nominee (as that nominee makes an apparently quite successful overseas tour) is that the Democratic turncoat is going to be just too polite (or broad-minded) to fully adopt the anti-Democratic side in the argument.
I'm talking, of course, about Lanny Davis. Here's Davis's latest Washington Times column:
I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.Damn, he's setting us up for a really melodramatic Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment -- and then he wimps out by saying he was probably right in the first place!
I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start.
... why risk the uncertainties of a pre-emptive invasion, loss of life and treasure, and diverting our attention from 9/11 and the war against terrorism, which most U.S. intelligence indicated had nothing to do with Saddam?
Of course, all these remain good reasons for opposing starting the war, even as I look back now.
No, wait --