Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kay vindicates Bush
townhall.com ^ | 2/03/04 | David Limbaugh

Posted on 02/02/2004 11:21:19 PM PST by kattracks

In light of weapons inspector David Kay's recent statements, it is mystifying to me that President Bush and Republicans aren't claiming vindication and challenging Democrats for exploiting the issue. Some observations about this:

1. Kay did say we didn't discover major stockpiles of recently developed WMD in Iraq, but almost everything else he said supports the president's position, exposing his opponents as wrong and reckless. Kay said or implied that:

A. "The intelligence community owes the president (an apology) rather than the president owing (one to) the American people."

B. The administration did not pressure the intelligence agencies to overstate the WMD threat.

C. While Bush relied on possibly erroneous intelligence, so did Saddam himself and his generals, the Clinton administration, France, Germany and Britain.

D. "What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

E. Iraq was a magnet for international terrorists who were free to operate there, and plan and conduct their deadly mischief.

F. Saddam was flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects and feverishly trying to do so in others. While there were supposedly no major WMD stockpiles, there were probably WMDs, some of which may have been removed to Syria in the weeks preceding our invasion. Saddam was trying to weaponize the deadly agent Ricin, and he was clearly developing missile systems in contravention of the resolutions.

G. Saddam's scientists may have duped him about their progress in developing WMD.

2. Bill Clinton recently said that when he ordered the bombing of Iraq's suspected WMD sites, we couldn't be sure whether we (and Britain) destroyed all of them, 50 percent or 10 percent -- because we didn't have inspectors on the ground to determine the extent of the damage. While Clinton was trying to take credit for possibly destroying Iraq's WMD, he inadvertently exposed his party's hypocrisy. Did Democrats complain that he bombed these sites when we didn't even know if WMD were there? Did Democrats complain about weaknesses in our intelligence because we never learned whether we struck pay dirt with those bombing attacks? Did they call for an investigation?

3. It's a little hard for me to swallow the idea that just one of Saddam's scientists deceived him, much less a network of them who would have had to discuss their lies conspiratorially, increasing the chances that they would be exposed (and then murdered).

4. But, if Kay is correct that Saddam was duped, how can we say we had an avoidable failure of intelligence? If a dictator with unchecked power has faulty intelligence about his own regime, how can our intelligence agencies be blamed for having that same info?

5. Intelligence is at best, an inexact science. It is hard to stomach all these armchair quarterbacks demanding perfection from the very intelligence organizations they and their like-minded predecessors emasculated in previous decades. If there were intelligence failures, they were probably not technological ones, but those of human intelligence (HUMINT), which is precisely what liberals weakened.

6. I question Kay's assertion that "you cannot have pre-emptive foreign or military policy unless you have pristine, perfect intelligence." Since much intelligence depends on the human factor, which is inherently imperfect, we will often not be completely certain about our intelligence. Yet, as even Kay admits, it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly.

7. And with all due respect to Mr. Kay and others, we did not, as I've written many times before, have the burden of proving Saddam had WMD. He had the duty of proving he had destroyed them and his programs. This he deliberately and defiantly failed to do. Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive; it was to enforce already violated resolutions.

8. President Bush has been pressured to conduct an independent investigation even though we don't know for sure that there was truly an intelligence failure that could realistically have been avoided. But as important as intelligence is in our war on terror, we can greatly benefit from a comprehensive review, provided its purpose remains constructive -- to expose and solve problems -- rather than to find a convenient scapegoat.

9. It doesn't make sense that Bush would have lied about WMD knowing that his lie would be exposed when we defeated Iraq. It's time for Democrats to "move on."

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact David Limbaugh | Read Limbaugh's biography



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush43; davidkay; davidlimbaugh; inspections; iraq; kay; prewarintelligence; vindication; wmd

1 posted on 02/02/2004 11:21:20 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Good article. I agree, I think that Bush needs to go on television and speak to the country and say exactly what David Limbaugh outlined here.
2 posted on 02/02/2004 11:24:38 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Excellent article.

I don't understand why the Republicans aren't fighting back and are letting the Dems lie and attack about this issue.
3 posted on 02/02/2004 11:53:15 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Apparently President Bush did address this, but somehow, it never made a splash in the lamestream media. I wonder why.

Bush: Kay Report Vindicates Iraq War

4 posted on 02/02/2004 11:57:03 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I wonder the same thing. Perhaps they are waiting to fight since we're still months away from the election.
But it seems like the Republicans are losing the PR race these days because of their silence.
5 posted on 02/03/2004 12:19:52 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
"But it seems like the Republicans are losing the PR race these days because of their silence."

==

Exaclty. We can't afford to leave the Dem chorus without response, because if we try to refute it later, it will be too late. Just the way people read some screaming front page headline, that's what they will remember, not the correction of the error on page 52 two months later.
6 posted on 02/03/2004 12:28:05 AM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Dubya has done a pretty good job so far at outmaneuvering his foes on a variety of issues. When he wants to make noise on this situation, I'm sure he'll be able to do so.
7 posted on 02/03/2004 12:53:38 AM PST by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I think in due course on this issue, Bush will blindside the Democrats and be on the nations good graces. He's already seeking an independent investigation, addressing the nation can't be too far off down the road.
8 posted on 02/03/2004 3:25:42 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I don't understand why the Republicans aren't fighting back and are letting the Dems lie and attack about this issue.

Let them attack Bush. We already know what they've said in the past, and as is the case with everything the Democrats try to stick on the President, they always end up with egg on their faces. If the Democrats want to conduct investigations, I say GO FOR IT!!! They're the ones who wanted Saddam out in the first place, and it was detailed to Clinton in much the same manner Bush went to war. The only ones so far who are linking the Iraq war with the WOT are the Democrats by saying Bush turned a blind eye toward OBL. Sooner rather than later, we'll see all sorts of linkage between the two.

It's the Democrats fault they went after Saddam by bombing the tarnation out of Baghdad only 4 days and nights, and largely ignored OBL.

Kay is right, if it's found that there were no WMD, everyone is to blame, and not just Bush and the Republicans.

For what it's worth, since 1991, the only ones who haven't wavered from their opinion of thugs, terrorists, and tinhorned dictators are the Republicans. The Democrats, even to this day want to create excuses for their ineptness, and use Bush's positives as negatives for political leverage to regain the Congress and the White House.

9 posted on 02/03/2004 3:34:09 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eva
The FACT is that Saddam was almost finished completing a nuclear reactor in 1981 (with all that oil for fuel they don't need an expensive reactor) which was destroyed by the Israelis. What were we supposed to do now? Sit around and wait for him to develop (or buy from Russian Mafia) portable suitcase nukes? The FACT is Saddam showed no hesitancy in the past to develop and USE WMD. I would rather be CAREFUL then to wait around until one of our cities was radioactive due to a suitcase bomb BECAUSE we didn't take Saddam out. If that happened folks would have been screaming about why we didn't take Saddam out when we had the chance.

BTW, one reason why I admire Bush is that he could have easily rested on his laurels after the overthrow of the Taliban and declared victory. Instead he took enormous political risk and got rid of Saddam.

10 posted on 02/03/2004 3:38:24 AM PST by PJ-Comix (Saddam Hussein was only 537 Florida votes away from still being in power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
BTTT
11 posted on 02/03/2004 3:55:22 AM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Excellent article!

I have the utmost confidence that President Bush will prevail on the WMD issue.

It's preposterous to believe that Saddam's scientists would dare to deceive him about WMD's knowing what would happen to them and their families when (not if) he found out.

12 posted on 02/03/2004 5:59:39 AM PST by RottiBiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
But according to Bring it Yaaaaawn Cash & Carry, even though Saddamn didn't know he didn't have weapons GW was supposed to?? I would prefer to have a President who errored on the side of caution, not hide under the desk all day! Hey Yaaaawn, there are plenty of rich widows that need you more than America does!

Pray for W and The Intellegence Community

13 posted on 02/03/2004 6:19:34 AM PST by bray (The Wicked Witch of NY and Her (9-8) Flying Monkeys are In Flames!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Time for a speech to the nation. Subject; exactly what is outlined here. Time is of the essence to blunt or negate the Democrat attack or risk having falsehoods accepted as fact.

The war was the fault of Saddam and only Saddam. If he had proved he had no WMD, there would not have been a war. Of course, Saddam would do no such thing to risk his stature in the region.

What is the Democrats argument anyway? Are they saying every intelligence agency in the world were wrong? Should we restore Saddam to power?

A more proper question would be (to any of the Dem candidates) "What would you do with the intelligence given to the president at the time?"
14 posted on 02/03/2004 11:08:21 AM PST by dmanLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmanLA
bump
15 posted on 02/03/2004 11:50:40 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dmanLA
bump
16 posted on 02/03/2004 11:50:40 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; PhiKapMom; Southflanknorthpawsis; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; deport; nopardons; ...
Did y'all see this? Makes a lot of good points, IMO, & all in one place, too.
17 posted on 02/03/2004 7:49:17 PM PST by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Excellent points, Amelia. Thanks for the ping.
18 posted on 02/03/2004 7:52:17 PM PST by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
8. President Bush has been pressured to conduct an independent investigation even though we don't know for sure that there was truly an intelligence failure that could realistically have been avoided. But as important as intelligence is in our war on terror, we can greatly benefit from a comprehensive review, provided its purpose remains constructive -- to expose and solve problems -- rather than to find a convenient scapegoat.


Very valid point and the way the President operates a convenient scapegoat isn't in the picture but rather the enhancement of the processes and procedures.....
19 posted on 02/03/2004 7:58:20 PM PST by deport (SUPER PURGE XXXVIII ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
I am going to vote for Bush and help him all that I can. We are in for a battle this fall and will need to give it our best shot for victory.
20 posted on 02/03/2004 8:04:33 PM PST by Big Horn (A waist is a terrible thing to mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Superb analysis. Thanks for posting. President Bush needs to come out from his DC digs and parley with the people. He best can say what he needs to say and he shouldn't have so many Rove filters placed on him.

He'd certainly win the hearts and minds of Americans for his simple strong words that can clobber even the most delusional pack of rabid democrat presidential wannabes and their enamoured pals in the mainstream press.

I mean, we have the JFK imposter, Kerry running around complaining that President Bush's military record needs looking into again, well, at least Bush has one and an honorable one at that, while Kerry never complained about Bill Clinton's utterly despicable draft dodging because Bill thought he was too good for the military and that he "loathed the military".

But, I quess if the draft dodging military loathing chauvanist perjuring pig is a democrat, it's ok by J F Kerry's standards.

21 posted on 02/03/2004 8:05:54 PM PST by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Thanks, Amelia. That is an excellent list!! ;-)
22 posted on 02/04/2004 7:14:41 AM PST by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; ThirstyMan; All
I'll tell ya exactly what's going on. Bush is herding the 'rats down a single-lane road that has, "Saddam's WMDs" on it's sign. And that road dead-ends off a cliff.

Be patient. Be strong.
23 posted on 02/04/2004 7:21:14 AM PST by RandallFlagg (<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson