Skip to comments.Why Did Democrats Lie About Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Posted on 05/24/2008 9:46:06 PM PDT by parousia
As the war in Iraq grows more unpopular with increasing number of Americans, Democrats in collusion with the liberal mainstream media, continue to politicize the war by distorting the facts.
Claim that President Bush lied about WMD in order to implement a grand strategy by neo-cons well before he took office supposedly aimed at using military force to install democratic regimes friendly to the U.S. throughout the Middle East.
However, the left has never adequately answered the following question. If Bush knew there was no WMD, why would he send 150,000 troops into Iraq since his lie would be immediately exposed by invading coalition forces and reported by a large contingent of media embedded within those forces?
Liberals also choose to ignore United Nations Resolution 144I,approved unanimously by the UN member nations. which clearly established that Iraq had WMD.
The liberal argument is discredited by comments by Democrats in Congress about the threat posed by Saddam WMD program put forth in a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry and others on Oct.9, 1998
December will mark three years since UN inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue and Saddam is doubtless using cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
"Theres no question Saddam Hussein is a threat and has chemical and biological weapons, as far as we know, is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesnt have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I sat and listened to the disgusting Alan Colmes the other evening screaming about the “no weapons found in Iraq” - I was amazed at his furor that was substantiated by that cretin of crap, Phil Donohue, the hatred bubbles just under the surface of these America haters, no one challenges their lies, even Sean was silent in listening to their two tirades, disgraceful Colmes should be kicked off the air, he is a whining and sicko liar!
Ditto. There have been numerous articles posted on FR and other conservative sites listing all the Dems who said Hussein had wmds. But with libs history starts today. Big Media has made it their goal to wipe out every supportive statement libs made before the war. It's like Stalin erasing Trotsky and other prominent commies from Soviet history books. It's amazing that they can get away with it, but with our current dominant lib media, anything is possible. Even erasing history.
It sure is. After that rant what did the Clinton/Gore administration do? Look the other way. If any rational case can be made for U.S. government complicity in allowing or orchestrating the 9/11 attack it would be against Clinton-Gore. Ignoring numerous attacks against the U.S.; WTC in '93, two U.S. embassies, the USS Cole. Half assed attacks on terrorists that only gave them confidence and resolve; aspirin factory, camel-in-the-butt attack in Afghanistan, office building in Baghdad bombing. Waving off the Saudi offer to take Osama bin Laden. People blame the Saudis now? They were giving us bin Laden. Clinton-Gore said "Nah, thanks anyway."
Even if every charge Albore levels against Reagan and Bush I were true (and that seems highly unlikely considering the source) the Clinton-Gore administration's only difference was they deliberately antagonized the terrorists with impotent attacks and ignored direct attacks on the U.S. (rather than Saddam's attacks involvement in lesser attacks on other countries and his own people) and treated efforts to help fight terrorism as a nuisance. That easily looks like a deliberate pattern intended to invite attack.
If the tin-foil hat fits it fits the pointy heads of Dem dunces better than anyone else.
They do lie, to get what they want just like some others we know....hmmmm?
I don’t “do” cryptic very well, I’m afraid. More plainly, please...? ;)
In the dictionary, ‘Democrat’ is right between ‘demagogue’ and ‘demon’.