Are You Going To Get Mad?

It is now about as clear as it's going to get that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell even contradicted himself (in his U.N. speech) by admitting recently that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Prior to the Iraq War, the Bush administration asserted as fact that Saddam had huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Administration members ridiculed people who expressed any doubts. Today, after spending millions of dollars looking for the weapons, they haven't found anything. And every Iraqi official captured, none of whom has any reason at all to lie, has said the same thing: There are no weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, the Iraqis had been saying that for years, and the Bush administration replied, "You're lying." Now we have this situation. The facts on the ground prove that the Iraqis, whom President Bush called liars, were telling the truth. What does that make Bush? It makes Bush either very badly mistaken or a liar.

It seems to me that if Bush were merely mistaken, he would admit it. He would say to the American people: "Look, I thought Iraq had those weapons based on intelligence, but apparently the intelligence was wrong. I apologize for misleading you." But the president will not do that. He gets huffy and defensive when asked about weapons of mass destruction. Before the war, he never opened his mouth without talking about weapons of mass destruction. It might be that there is simply an arrogant gene in the Bush family. It might be that he was just lying.

It is true that the intelligence reports contained a lot of reservations, expressions of doubt and uncertainty, but when this came out of the political process, it was told to the American people as unquestionable fact without reservations. "Intelligence gathered by this government and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and to conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," Bush said on March 17. All the Bush people were asserting this to be a fact.

Now we have nearly 500 dead Americans who died to protect the United States from weapons that don't exist. And more will die, and for what reason? So Halliburton and other big corporations can make a lot of money? So Israel can feel safer? So we can have permanent military bases in Iraq? So the president can strut about and call himself the Conqueror of Iraq? One thing you can be sure of: They won't die defending the United States, because Iraq is not now and never was a threat to the United States.

It's no wonder Bush avoids military funerals and has barred the press from the airport where our dead come home. It's no wonder he has clamped a lid of secrecy on the search for weapons of mass destruction. What he ought to do is write a letter of apology to the families of every dead and wounded soldier. That'll be the day.

I don't know about you, but I'm damned angry that the president took this country to war on false pretenses. He has now dreamed up all these other reasons for going to war, but he sold this war to Congress and to the American people on the basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

This is far more serious than anything Bill Clinton did. He lied about dillydallying with a young girl. This president apparently lied about the reasons he wanted to take this country to war. He is, behind his facade of good old boy, apparently a man so arrogant that he does not think the American people deserve to be told the truth.

Maybe he's right. If the American people are not offended enough to throw him out of office, then apparently — in this country, anyway — the truth no longer matters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is now about as clear as it's going to get that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

No, it's not. There are endless hiding places amidst the seas of sand, not to mention trails that lead into other countries, that we have not yet investigated. Many will not be checked until Iraq is pacified, and we have assets to spare.

Secretary of State Colin Powell even contradicted himself (in his U.N. speech) by admitting recently that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Al Qaida is not why we went into Iraq. North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, and a host of other nations that proliferate WMD are. We had to make an example out of Iraq, who resisted peaceful resolutions for 12 years, before we can move on to curbing the ambitions of other rogue nations.

In fact, the Iraqis had been saying that for years, and the Bush administration replied, "You're lying."

As did Clinton. Remember 'Desert Fox'? The Iraqi WMD shell game has been going on for years.

The facts on the ground prove that the Iraqis, whom President Bush called liars, were telling the truth.

No, it doesn't. Just the opposite. The Iraqis never produced any evidence that they destroyed their known stockpiles. That would be very easy to prove, had they done so. Had they brought our weapons inspectors to the site where they destroyed their WMD, tests could have been run to confirm it. This has not happened.

Somewhere, there is either residue of destroyed WMDs, or WMDs themselves. There is no third option.

It makes Bush either very badly mistaken or a liar.

Cute, but it ignores the possibility that they were destroyed or hidden abroad.

"Intelligence gathered by this government and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and to conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," Bush said on March 17. All the Bush people were asserting this to be a fact.

Not only the Bush people, but the dead Kurds and Iranians can attest to the effectiveness of Iraqi chemical weapons. This is not intelligence, it is historical fact.

Now we have nearly 500 dead Americans who died to protect the United States from weapons that don't exist.

Not only is that not true, but now we're ensuring that illicit WMD production won't start up in Iraq. We're also encouraging other rogue nations, like Libya, that the road to WMDs does not lead to more security.

And more will die, and for what reason? So Halliburton and other big corporations can make a lot of money?

Not a bad point, if you're given to conspiracy theories.

So Israel can feel safer?

That's a side benefit. Israel is a liberal democratic republic surrounded by despotic thugs. As a matter of principal we should support them whenever possible.

So we can have permanent military bases in Iraq?

Nothing is permanent. Ask the Panamanians, Filipinos, French, or the Germans. Note our steadily dwindling troop levels in South Korea and Japan. As threats fade, we fade. Not very imperial of us, of course, but we get by.

So the president can strut about and call himself the Conqueror of Iraq?

A thoroughly childish statement.

One thing you can be sure of: They won't die defending the United States, because Iraq is not now and never was a threat to the United States.

Not so. They're serving two vital purposes. The first purpose is that they are showing other rogue nations we are serious when we ask them to abide by their obligations to disarm or not arm in the first place. If Iraq could get 12 years of 'one more chance's out of us, why should Iran or North Korea listen to what we say? You simply can't negotiate without credibility.

The second purpose is that they're forcibly restructuring the Middle East from the inside. Even a half baked clunky democratic government would be a vast improvement over any other Arabic nation, and would be an example for others to emulate. The strong men and theocrats fear nothing more than our ultimate success in Iraq, with good reason.

Both of these ends strike at the hearts of our 21st century threats. We've demonstrated our resolve to our more intractable enemies, and begun to poison the well of tyranny that flows throughout the Arab world. It is grim and thankless work, but in the long run, far, far better than letting the cancers grow untreated.

This is far more serious than anything Bill Clinton did.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.