Posted on 06/05/2003 1:32:49 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Seething with rage and frustration at the success of the war in Iraq, liberals have started in with their female taunting about weapons of mass destruction. The way they carry on, you would think they had caught the Bush administration in some shocking mendacity. (You know how the left hates a liar.)
For the sake of their tiresome argument, let's stipulate that we will find no weapons of mass destruction – or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program.
Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What is liberals' point?
No one cares.
In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own people.
The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.)
Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because he had nothing to hide!
But that wasn't liberals' position.
Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons – so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them.
But that wasn't the Bush administration's position.
Rather, it was that there were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein and none to keep him. When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours' notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
Liberals kept saying that's too many reasons. The New York Times' leading hysteric, Frank Rich, complained: "We know Saddam Hussein is a thug and we want him gone. But the administration has never stuck to a single story in arguing the case for urgent pre-emptive action now." Since liberals never print retractions, they can say anything. What they said in the past is never admissible.
Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction – and with gusto – in order to argue against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory strikes, there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops would be hit with Saddam's chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire.
They said "all" we needed to do was disarm him. This would have required a military occupation of Iraq and a systematic inspection of the 1,000 or so known Iraqi weapons sites without interference from the Hussein regime. In other words, pretty much what we're doing right now.
Remember? That's why liberals were so smitten with the idea of relying on U.N. weapons inspectors. As their title indicates, "weapons inspectors" inspect weapons. They don't stop torture, abolish rape rooms, feed the people, topple Saddam's statues or impose democracy.
In January this year, The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof cited the sort of dismal CIA report that always turns up in the hands of New York Times reporters, warning that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." He said he opposed invading Iraq as a pure matter of the "costs and benefits" of an invasion, concluding we should not invade because there was "clearly a significant risk" that it would make America less safe.
In his native tongue, weaselese, Kristof claimed he would be gung-ho for war if only he were convinced we could "oust Saddam with minimal casualties and quickly establish a democratic Iraq." We've done that, and now he's blaming the Bush administration for his own idiotic predictions of disaster. Somehow, that's Bush's fault, too. Kristof says Bush manipulated evidence of weapons of mass destruction – an act of duplicity he calls "just as alarming" as a dictator who has weapons of mass destruction.
If Americans were lied to, they were lied to by liberals who warned we would be annihilated if we attacked Iraq. The left's leading intellectual light, Janeane Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war, saying: "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says, 'There will be up to a half a million people killed or wounded.'" Now they're testy because they fear Saddam may never have had even a sporting chance to unleash dastardly weapons against Americans
Actually, the Bush administration lied its sweet head off about the Iraq situation from start to finish. But, putting yourself in their position, WTF were they supposed to do?
Bump.
Liberals have no point and don't want anyone to notice. But everyone does. They'll only get votes from leaches and people blindly trained to hate conservatives so they'll vote for Democrats.
In a way, it's a reprise of the old "we can do it cheaper" politics of the GOP's nadir, during the Sixties and Seventies. The opposition must oppose, otherwise what's its significance? Why should anyone pay it attention? But to oppose without issues makes one seem petty and envious. It's a trap.
And, since we know what they're really all about and what they'd do if restored to power, let's hope the Democrats remain in that trap!
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
We want pictures!
SEN. BIDEN:[then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee]... Big nations have obligations to keep their commitments, and here we are-look, in eight short months we had distanced ourselves from our allies more than we ever had before, and we've brought our adversaries closer together than ever before. And why? Chuck Hagel said it best this morning, the Republican senator on the committee. He said, "Look, this seems to be"-I'm paraphrasing-"This seems to be their foreign policy." They have no big picture. They don't come up and tell us what is their policy toward China; what is the policy toward Russia, what is the policy-it's constantly missile defense. And I just don't see it as a defense. And, by the way, while we're building missile defense, what about the rest of our priorities? I'm holding hearings on the homeland threat. I have people like Sam Nunn and others testifying and saying, "Look, the threat from pathogens being dispersed by a terrorist organization or a Third World country is much, much, much greater than anything likely to happen, an ICBM striking us." We have the Baker report...
MR. RUSSERT: Will missile defense protect us from that?
SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely-missile defense will protect us from virtually nothing. Now, look even if the missile defense works, the limited defense-and they don't define what that is, Tim-the limited missile defense will, in best, you're talking about 90 percent. When you and I were in college, there used to be an expression, "One nuclear bomb could ruin your day." What's this idea? What are we being-it will not protect us from cruise missiles. It will not protect us from something being smuggled in. It will not protect us from an atom bomb on the rusty hull of a ship coming into a harbor. It will not protect us from anthrax. It will not protect-all of which the Defense Department says are much more likely threats than somebody sending an ICBM with a return address on it, saying, "We just struck you," knowing they'll result in immediate annihilation.
___
Biden was everywhere in the media that first week in September, attacking the Administration and hyping the threat of 'anthrax' and 'suitcase dirty bombs.' Now the same man is on the Sunday shows saying that the Administration is not showing him any proof. As Ann Coulter says, being a liberal means 'what you said in the past is never admissible.'
Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - and with gusto - in order to argue against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory strikes, there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops would be hit with Saddam's chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire. They said "all" we needed to do was disarm him. This would have required a military occupation of Iraq and a systematic inspection of the 1,000 or so known Iraqi weapons sites without interference from the Hussein regime. In other words, pretty much what we're doing right now.Remember? That's why liberals were so smitten with the idea of relying on U.N. weapons inspectors. As their title indicates, "weapons inspectors" inspect weapons. They don't stop torture, abolish rape rooms, feed the people, topple Saddam's statues or impose democracy.
Yep, I remember that. Another great article by Ann Coulter, thanks John.
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.